Pradeep Dhawan Alias Raju v. State Of Haryana

-1114-2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 21.11.2023 Pradeep Dhawan @ Raju

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU Present :

Mr. A.K.Ranolia, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Kiran Pal Singh, AAG, Haryana, for the respondent.

MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU, J.

Present petition has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail pending trial to the petitioner in FIR No.41 dated 10.02.2023, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station NIT, Faridabad, District Faridabad.

2.

Above FIR was registered against Jharna Packaging MCF 45, Block A Sanjay Colony, Sector 22, Faridabad, and its proprietor Omkar Sharma on the basis of statement made by the Manager, Union Bank of India, with the allegations that petitioner had duped the bank by encashing a fake demand draft of Rs.1,00,00,000/- in his firm's account. For brevity, contents of the FIR are reproduced as below:-

-2- "1. That the applicant is the Branch Manager of Union Bank of India Branch 5E/3, B.P.Neelam Railway Road, N.I.T., Faridabad. 2. That the CC account No.180413100000283 of the firm Jharna Packaging of accused No.2 is running in the applicant/bank, whose CC limit has been fixed at Rs.20 lakh. 3. That on 19.01.2023, the accused No.2 has brought a DD No.295261 dated 17.01.2023 issued by Union Bank of India Branch Nehru Place, New Delhi, amounting to Rs.1,00,00,000/- in the name of his firm Jharna Packaging in the applicant/bank, which was enchahsed by the applicant/bank in the CC Account No.180413100000283 of accused No.1. 4. That the applicant/bank came to know from the said DD issuing bank that the issuer of the said original DD came to its branch with the original DD to get it cancelled.

Then the applicant bank came to know that the accused No.1 and 2 in connivance with each other got the said fake DD encashed from the applicant/bank by fraud and forgery. Therefore, it is a humble request you that a case should be registered against the said accused(s) for cheating and forgery and the said amount should be recovered by taking the strict legal action. I shall be highly obliged."

3.

Learned counsel submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case and fraud, if any, was committed by his co-accused Jagan, who is running a firm in the name of S.K.Enterprises at Faridabad. Further submits that main accused Jagan has already been granted the concession of regular bail by learned Sessions Judge, Faridabad. Also submits that petitioner is in custody since 18.02.2023 and after investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. already stands submitted; trial is likely to

-3take sufficient long time; therefore, petitioner be granted concession of regular bail.

4.

Per contra, learned State counsel, while opposing the prayer of petitioner, submits that there are direct and specific allegations against him to the effect that he, in collusion with other co-accused, committed fraud with the bank. Further submits that story put forth by the petitioner is unbelievable as he is directly involved in the present case. Also submits that petitioner in his disclosure also admitted that out of total amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/-, he was the beneficiary of Rs.31,00,000/-. 5.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paperbook. 6.

It has come on record that out of aforesaid amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/-, co-accused-Omkar Sharma had transferred Rs.85,00,000/- in the account of M/s S.K.Enterprises owned & managed by co-accused Jagan Singh. Further, Jagan Singh transferred Rs.17,50,000/- in the account of Pradeep Dhawan @ Raja (petitioner); Rs.4,50,000/- was transferred in the account of petitioner's daughter-Deepika; Rs.4,50,000/- was transferred in the account of petitioner's wife-Geeta and Rs.4,50,000/- was transferred in the account of petitioner's son-Deepak Dhawan. Thus, it is clearly discernible that petitioner has received Rs.31,00,000/- through different sources and out of the same, he withdrew Rs.24,50,000/- and handed over the same to co-accused-Sanjay Garg while retaining the rest of amount i.e.

-4Rs.6,50,000/-. Thus, prima facie, it seems to be a bank fraud and complicity of the petitioner is quite visible.

7.

Consequently, this Court is not inclined to grant bail pending trial to the petitioner at this stage and as such, the petition is dismissed. 8.

It is clarified that observations made above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on merits of the controversy, in any manner.

9.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. 21.11.2023 (MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU) adhikari JUDGE Whether speaking / reasoned :

Yes No Whether Reportable :

Yes No