Vikramjeet Singh v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-52651-2019 (O&M) Vikramjeet Singh ... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ... Respondent (O&M) Joginder Singh ... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ... Respondent Date of Decision:- 5.2.2020

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL Present:- Mr. P.P.S.Duggal, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Ms. Rashmi Attri, AAG, Punjab assisted by H.C. Kulbir Singh.

Mr. Karandeep S.Sidhu, Advocate for the complainant. ***** GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J .

1. This order shall dispose of the aforesaid two petitions filed on behalf of Vikramjeet Singh and Joginder Singh seeking grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered against them vide FIR No.80 dated 5.10.2019 under Sections 406/420/120-B IPC at Police Station Mallan Wala, District Ferozepur.

2. The FIR in question was lodged at the instance of Amrik Singh and others wherein it has been alleged that the accused namely Mangat Ram Maini and Karandeep Maini opened Pig Farming company under the name and style of

2 CRM-M-52651-2019 & 'Sure Gain Solution' in Ferozepur and had made the complainants invest in the same while holding out a promise that investments would grow "one and a half times" within seven months and that the profit amount would be credited in the accounts of the complainants every Monday. It is alleged that no amount was, however, credited in their accounts after 27.3.2019 and when the accused were confronted with the same, they came out with a plea that on account of enforcement of Election code of conduct, the amount could not be credited and that the same would be credited after 19.5.2019. It is alleged that however, the said persons eloped after 19.5.2019 along with their families and were not traceable and had thus, duped the complainants of huge amount.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that they are not named in the FIR and are falsely been implicated merely on account of the fact that at some point of time, they had remained employed for a short period in the company. It has further been submitted that there is nothing on record to show that the petitioners had benefited out of the alleged investments made by the complainants and as such, the petitioners deserve the concession of anticipatory bail.

4. Opposing the petition, the learned State counsel has submitted that during the course of investigation, it had surfaced that while petitioner Joginder Singh was an agent of the company, the petitioner Vikramjeet Singh was computer operator. It had also surfaced during investigation that at the instance of petitioner Joginder Singh, the petitioner Vikramjeet Singh and one Gurdeep Singh who were both computer operators and were operating the bank account of the company online had withdrawn an amount of ` 24

3 CRM-M-52651-2019 & lacs from the account of Mangat Ram Maini and had distributed the same amongst themselves and had, thus, misappropriated the same. The learned State counsel has, thus, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

5. I have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court. Keeping in view the enormity of the scam and that the modus-operandi and finer details of the scam are yet to be unraveled, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners would certainly be required.

6. No special case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. The petitions are sans any merits and are hereby dismissed.

5.2.2020 (Gurvinder Singh Gill) kamal Judge Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No