Surender v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-22049-2023 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 24.5.2023 Surender ... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL Present:- Mr. Sandeep Goyat, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Geeta Sharma, DAG, Haryana, assisted by SI Bhan Singh.

***** FIR NO.

DATE POLICE STATION OFFENCES 25.2.2021 Narnaund, District Hansi Sections 193, 201, 205, 297, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471/120-B IPC GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J .

1. The petitioner seeks grant of anticipatory bail in a case arising out of above mentioned FIR.

2. The FIR in the present case was lodged at the instance of ERGO General Insurance Company Limited wherein it is alleged that several instances of fraud had come to the notice of the company wherein the cases of natural deaths have been shown as accidental deaths and claims in respect of personal accident policies had been made. It is alleged that persons belonging to poor families/labourers/farmers were allured by accused so as to get such terminally ill persons insured by concealing the factum of their illness. Upon death of such terminally ill persons, the death was shown to

CRM-M-22049-2023 (O&M) be accidental death and claims were got released from insurance companies on the basis of dubious and forged documents.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case and that there is no evidence to connect him with the alleged scam of release of insurance claims on the basis of insurance policies by dubious means and that neither he had signed any document nor he is beneficiary of any such amount.

4. Opposing the petition, the learned State counsel has submitted that since the co-accused had suffered disclosure statement nominating the petitioner to be involved in the scam, his complicity is clearly evident. The learned State counsel has informed that the petitioner stands involved in three other similar cases.

5. This Court has considered rival submissions addressed before this Court.

6. The petitioner is not named in the FIR and came to be nominated on the basis of a disclosure statement made by co-accused Sunil. However, apart from the disclosure statement there is no other evidence to corroborate the said disclosure statement. Neither any amount was found to have been passed on to the petitioner nor any document is shown to be bearing his signatures. Several other co-accused have already been granted anticipatory bail. In view of the aforestated facts and circumstances including the factum of parity, the petitioner also deserves the concession of anticipatory bail.

7. The petition, as such, is accepted and it is ordered that the petitioner in the event of his arrest shall be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. However, the petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called upon

CRM-M-22049-2023 (O&M) to do so and cooperate with the Arresting/Investigating Officer and shall also abide by the conditions as provided under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. 24.5.2023 ( Gurvinder Singh Gill ) kamal Judge Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No