Baljeet Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr

ANOOP CHITKARA, J. FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 118 05.11.2024 Ghanaur, Dist. Patala 406, 420 and 506 IPC

¶1The pettoner apprehending arrest in the FIR captoned above has come up before this Court under Secton 482 of Bharatya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking antcipatory bail.

¶2In paragraph 16 of the bail petton, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.

¶3The facts and allegatons are being taken from the reply filed by the State, which reads as follows: "3. That the brief facts of the present case/FIR No. 118 (supra) are that a representaton dated 20.03.2024 was moved by Gurpreet Singh (complainant/respondent no. 2) before Senior Superintendent of Police, Patala, against Baljeet Singh (present pettoner), Gurmeet Singh and Chamkaur Singh alias Channi with the allegatons that he met with Baljeet Singh (pettoner) at the shop of Harbhajan Singh, wherein, the pettoner told him to invest money in the scheme. The respondent no.2 fell in the words of pettoner and gave him a sum of Rs.4,56,000/-. The pettoner used to give some in installments by saying that it was the interest. In this order/judgment. 1 way, pettoner gave Rs.99,000/- alongwith one cheque dated 12.04.2023 amountng to Rs.03,57,000/-to the respondent no.2. The pettoner took respondent no.2 into his confidence in this way. Therea8er, the respondent no.2 transferred a sum of Rs.05,38,500/- in the bank accounts of aforementoned Baljeet Singh (pettoner), Gurmeet Singh and Chamkaur Singh alias Channi. When the respondent no.2 gave the cheque dated

12.04.2023 to his banker for encashment, the same got dishonored, due to which, the respondent no.2 got suspicious. When the respondent no.2 did not get his money back, he alongwith Jagdish Chand went to pettoner and demanded his money back. At first, the pettoner started lingering on the ma<er but then the pettoner said to him that they were 'Chamaar' by caste and why does their caste need money. Subsequently, the respondent no.2 came into light that the aforementoned persons were fraudsters and they were having fun and buying propertes with the money of respondent no.2.

¶4That the enquiry of the said representaton was conducted by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Circle Ghanaur, District Patala, who a8er conductng thorough and detailed enquiry, found that Gurpreet Singh (respondent no. 2) met with Baljeet Singh (pettoner), who told the respondent no.2 that he was running a company under the name and style of Fateh Industry. The head office of the company was at Nabha and Sangrur and the company was involved in the business of finance, which gives 28% interest on the amount. Subsequently, the respondent no.2 fell into the trap of pettoner and transferred Rs.4300/- on 09.07.2022, Rs.35000/- on 26.07.2022, Rs.94,500/- on 29.07.2022, Rs.31,500/- on

13.08.2022 in the google pay number 94657-xxxxx of Baljeet Singh (pettoner). Therea8er, on the asking of pettoner, the respondent no.2 transferred Rs.31,500/- on 25.07.2022, Rs.31,500/- on 27.07.2022, Rs.94,500/- on 01.08.2022 in the google pay number 70091xxxx of Gurmeet Singh, owner of the company. The respondent no.2 also transferred Rs.1,50,000/- in the bank account of Gurmeet Singh on 18.08.2022. Therea8er, Gurmeet Singh returned back total sum of Rs.99,000/- cash in installments, which was the interest of money given by respondent No.2. Then the respondent No.2 did not receive any money for long tme, due to which, he again met with Baljeet Singh (pettoner), who introduced the respondent no.2 with Chamkaur Singh alias Channi, who was manager of the company earlier. When the respondent no. 2 talked about his money JYOTI with the pettoner, he told him that his money was gone as their company order/judgment. 2 had gone in loss. Pettoner also told the respondent no.2 that Chamkaur Singh alias Channi was doing trading in the company and if respondent no. 2 gives him Rs.1 Lakh, he would return the same alongwith previous amount. The respondent no.2 again fell in their trap and a8er mortgaging gold of his wife at Muthoot Finance, Rajpura, he obtained Rs.70,000/- on

28.12.2022 and on the same day, he transferred the said amount in the google pay number 98142-xxxx of Chamkaur Singh alias Channi. Apart from this, the respondent no.2 had also given Rs. 4 Lakh cash to Baljeet Singh (pettoner) and Gurmeet Singh by going at company's office at Sangrur. Lateron, they told the respondent no.2 that his payment was gone and he could do whatever he wanted and a8er that, they stopped answering phone calls of respondent no.2. In this way, Baljeet Singh (pettoner) in connivance with Gurmeet Singh and Chamkaur Singh alias Channi duped the respondent no.2 to the tune of Rs.09,38,000/- and the enquiry officer recommended to register case/FIR against them for offence under Secton 406, 420 and 506 of IPC. That the report of enquiry officer was approved by Senior Superintendent of Police, Patala and hence, the present case/FIR was registered against Baljeet Singh (pettoner), Gurmeet Singh and Chamkaur Singh alias Channi for the offence under Secton 406, 420 and 506 of IPC."

¶4The pettoner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditons and contends that further pre-trial incarceraton would cause an irreversible injustce to the pettoner and his family. He further submits that pursuant to his undertaking pettoner already declared his net worth.

¶5The State's counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply.

¶6It would be appropriate to refer to the following portons of the reply, which read as follows: "6. ROLE OF PETITIONER:- That it was the pettoner only, who met with the respondent no.2 and told him about the company and that the company give 28% interest on the money invested in it. A8er falling in the words of pettoner, the respondent no.2 transferred Rs.4300/- on 09.07.2022, Rs.35000/- on 26.07.2022, Rs.94,500/- on 29.07.2022, Rs.31,500/- on

13.08.2022 in the google pay number 94657-xxxxx of Baljeet Singh (pettoner). The pettoner received a sum of Rs.1,65,300/- in his bank account from the respondent no.2. That the pettoner in connivance with order/judgment. 3 co-accused Gurmeet Singh and Chamkaur Singh alias Channi duped the respondent no.2 to the tune of Rs.09,38,000/- on the pretext of giving his 28% interest on it. But lateron, they only gave Rs.99000/- as interest and therea8er, refused to return the money by saying that their company had gone in loss, due to which, the money invested by respondent no.2 has been lost.

¶7EVIDENCE AGAINST PETITIONER:- That there are direct and specific allegatons levelled by respondent no.2 against the pettoner. Moreover, a total sum of Rs.1,65,300/- has been received by pettoner in his bank account from respondent no.2, which clearly proves the actve involvement of pettoner in the present case/FIR." REASONING:

¶7Pre-trial incarceraton should not be a replica of post-convicton sentencing. The evidence might be prima facie sufficient to launch prosecuton or to frame charges, but this Court is not considering the evidence at that stage but is analyzing it for the stage of antcipatory bail. An analysis of the above does not justfy custodial interrogaton or pre-trial incarceraton.

¶8Given the above, the penal provisions invoked coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allegatons, pettoner already declared all his assets enable respondent to recover money through civil suit and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justfiability for custodial interrogaton or the pre-trial incarceraton at this stage. Without commentng on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentoned above, the pettoner makes a case for bail.

¶9Given above, provided the pettoner is not required in any other case, the pettoner shall be released on antcipatory bail in the FIR captoned above subject to furnishing bonds to the satsfacton of the Arrestng Officer, and if the mater is before a Court, then the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before acceptng the surety, the concerned Officer/Court must be satsfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused.

¶10While furnishing a personal bond, the pettoner shall menton the following personal identficaton details:

¶1AADHAR number

¶2Passport number (If available) and when the order/judgment. 4 atestng officer/court considers it appropriate or considers the accused a flight risk.

¶3Mobile number (If available)

¶4E-Mail id (If available)

¶11This order is subject to the pettoner's complying with the following terms.

¶12The pettoner is directed to join the investgaton within seven days of uploading this order on the official webpage of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and as and when called by the Investgator. The pettoner shall be in deemed custody for Secton 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872/ Secton 23 of BSA, 2023. The pettoner shall join the investgaton as and when called by the Investgatng Officer or any Superior Officer and shall cooperate with the investgaton at all further stages as required. In the event of failure to do so, the prosecuton will be open to seeking cancellaton of the bail. During the investgaton, the pettoner shall not be subjected to third-degree, indecent language, inhuman treatment, etc.

¶13The pettoner shall abide by all statutory bond conditons and appear before the concerned Court(s) on all dates. The pettoner shall not tamper with the evidence, influence, browbeat, pressurize, induce, threaten, or promise, directly or indirectly, any witnesses, Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case or dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police or the Court.

¶14In case the Investgator/Officer-In-Charge of the concerned Police Staton arraigns another secton of any penal offense in this FIR, and if the new secton prescribes a maximum sentence that is not greater than the sectons mentoned above, then this bail order shall be deemed to have also been passed for the newly added secton(s). However, suppose the newly inserted sectons prescribe a sentence exceeding the maximum sentence prescribed in the sectons mentoned above; then, in that case, the Investgator/Officer-In-Charge shall give the pettoner notce of a minimum of seven days, providing an opportunity to avail the remedies available in law.

¶15This bail is conditonal, and the foundatonal conditon is that if the pettoner indulges in any non-bailable offense, the State may file an applicaton for cancellaton of this bail before the Sessions Court, which shall be at liberty to cancel this bail.

¶16The concerned Judicial Magistrate/ Trial Court is authorized to delete, modify, or relax any of the conditons mentoned above and is competent to do so following the law.

¶17Any observaton made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the order/judgment. 5 case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

¶18A certfied copy of this order would not be needed for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Pettoner can download this order along with case status from the official web page of this Court and atest it to be a true copy. If the atestng officer wants to verify its authentcity, such an officer can also verify its authentcity and may download and use the downloaded copy for atestng bonds.

¶19Petition allowed in terms mentoned above. All pending applicatons, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE

11.03.2025 Jyot-II Whether reportable: No. order/judgment. 6

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 03.03.2025 Pronounced on: 11.03.2025 Baljeet Singh ...Pettoner Versus State of Punjab and another …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. H.S. Bath, Advocate, for the pettoner. Mr. Akshay Kumar, AAG, Punjab. Ms. Jaspreet Kaur, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ****