The High Court
Case Details
CRM-M-37576-2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-37576-2024 Reserved on: 13.01.2025 Pronounced on: 30.01.2025 Goldy Walia @ Janak Singh ...Pe(cid:20)(cid:20)oner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Rehat Bir Singh Mann, Advocate for the pe(cid:20)(cid:20)oner. Mr. Sukhdev Singh, A.A.G, Punjab. Ms. Kri(cid:20)ma Sareen, Advocate and Mr. Pratham Sethi, Advocate for the complainant. ANOOP CHITKARA, J. ****
Facts
FIR No. Dated Police Sta1on Sec1ons 77 02.06.2023 Sarabha Nagar, District Police Commissionerate Ludhiana 408, 420, 120-B IPC 1. The pe(cid:20)(cid:20)oner apprehending arrest in the FIR cap(cid:20)oned above has come up before this Court under Sec(cid:20)on 482 of Bhara(cid:20)ya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking an(cid:20)cipatory bail. 2. In paragraph 17 of the bail pe(cid:20)(cid:20)on, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents. 3. The facts and allega(cid:20)ons are being taken from the reply filed by the State, which reads as follows: “3. xxxxx It was alleged by the complainant that he runs a company under the name and style of M/s. B.S. Steel which is engaged in the business of import Machinery and Scrap. One Amarjit Singh Bha" was the Accountant in the said company of the complainant since the year 2008. The complainant resides at America and he came to India in the year 2022 when the said Accountant Amarjit Singh Bha" told the complainant that he has done business deal (Purchase) with various companies/firms and that for making refund payments of GST to those companies/firms, JYOTI 2025.01.30 14:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 1 CRM-M-37576-2024 Amarjit Singh Bha" got signed Cheques from the complainant. It was further alleged that the said Amarjit Singh Bha" had shown one Purchase Invoice of Rs.1.00 Crore to the complainant of one firm M/s. Luthra and Company for which the complainant paid GST of Rs.18,00,020/- through RTGs in the name of said Luthra and Company. However, therea6er the said Luthra and Company moved a complaint to the police that their Agents i.e. the present pe77oner and others have prepared its fake invoices in the name of the complainant's company. During the enquiry in the said complaint by the police, it was revealed that the said amount of Rs.18,00,020/- was firstly got deposited from the complainant in the name of Luthra and Company and therea6er the said amount was got deposited fraudulently by the present pe77oner and Munish Kumar in the bank account of some other firm namely Krishna Enterprises-Mandi Gobindgarh and within two hours the same was withdrawn. However, on pressuring the bank i.e. Yes Bank, the said money was deposited by Yes Bank in the complainant's bank account. It was further alleged that therea6er the complainant checked his record during which it was revealed that total GST of Rs.1,19,35,880/- has been got deposited from the complainant's firm through RTGs on the basis of fake invoices. Even payments were not deposited in the names of the firms whose fake invoices were prepared and rather the payments were got deposited in some other bank accounts. It was further alleged that the said Amarjit Singh Bha" in connivance with his accomplices and also the bank officials, got deposited a total amount of Rs.1,19,35,880/- from the complainant on the basis of fake invoices and therea6er withdrawn the same within two hours.” 4. The pe(cid:20)(cid:20)oner’s counsel submits that no money was received by the pe(cid:20)(cid:20)oner(s) either into their respec(cid:20)ve accounts or by any other mode. The en(cid:20)re allega(cid:20)ons levelled by the complainant are against his accountant/co-accused Amarjot Singh BhaB who is absconding. He submits that out of the disputed amount of Rs. 1,19,35,890/-, more than two-third amount i.e. Rs.80,00,000/- has been returned to the complainant. He submits the Inves(cid:20)ga(cid:20)ng Agency cannot assume the role of a recovery agent. He relied upon the judgments in the cases of Lalit Chaturvedi v. State of U4ar Pradesh, 2024(2) RCR (Criminal) 73 and Bimla Tiwari v. State of Bihar, 2023(1) RCR (Criminal) 773. He submits that subsequent to receiving money during the course of inquiry, the complainant compromised the maGer with the pe(cid:20)(cid:20)oners. Now, since the complainant cannot get hold of his accountant/co-accused Amarjot Singh BhaB, he has backtracked JYOTI 2025.01.30 14:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 2 CRM-M-37576-2024 on his compromise so as to make the pe(cid:20)(cid:20)oners hostage. He further submits that the pe(cid:20)(cid:20)oners have no concern with the complainant. The very basis of the nomina(cid:20)on of the pe(cid:20)(cid:20)oners in the present case is one complaint given by a firm Luthra & Co.' to Kapurthala Police claiming that the pe(cid:20)(cid:20)oners were their employees and they were genera(cid:20)ng fake bills in the firm's company. It is per(cid:20)nent to men(cid:20)on herein that no ac(cid:20)on has been taken on the said complaint by the Kapurthala Police i.e. no merit was found in the complaint. He submits that in para No. 4 of the reply filed by the State, the only role aGributed to the pe(cid:20)(cid:20)oners is that they were employees of "M/s Luthra & Co." and they prepared fake invoices and received an amount of Rs.18,00,020/-. It is per(cid:20)nent to men(cid:20)on herein that even if the said allega(cid:20)ons are believed to be true, the said amount stands deposited back into complainant's account and the said fact has also come in State's reply itself (Page No. 5). He further submits that the present case is covered by the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2014 RCR (Criminal) 527 as well as no(cid:20)fica(cid:20)on no. 159 Gaz. II (17) dated 22.09.2023 issued by this Hon'ble Court. He further submits that in para No. 5 of State's
Legal Reasoning
prima facie indicts the pe(cid:20)(cid:20)oner in connivance with Munish Pal @ Munish Kumar and other co-accused have prepared the fake invoices of Rs.1 crore and then thereby fraudulently transferring money in their own the accounts which was not en(cid:20)tled to them. It is not a case of simple mis-appropria(cid:20)on but of chea(cid:20)ng and thugee. Thus, given the nature of allega(cid:20)ons, the pe(cid:20)(cid:20)oner is not en(cid:20)tled to bail. The parameters for an(cid:20)cipatory bail are en(cid:20)rely different from the regular bail. 9. A perusal of the bail pe(cid:20)(cid:20)on and the documents aGached primafacie points towards the pe(cid:20)(cid:20)oner’s involvement and does not make out a case for an(cid:20)cipatory bail. The impact of crime would also not jus(cid:20)fy an(cid:20)cipatory bail. Any further discussions will likely prejudice the pe(cid:20)(cid:20)oner; this court refrains from doing so. JYOTI 2025.01.30 14:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 5 CRM-M-37576-2024 10. Any observa(cid:20)on made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 11. Pe11on dismissed. Interim orders, if any, are recalled with immediate effect. All
Arguments
reply, it is contended that number of phone calls were exchanged between the accused persons which has come in call detail records. He further argued that it is held in catena of judgments that mere call detail records sans transcript of conversa(cid:20)on between co- accused is not corrobora(cid:20)ve without substan(cid:20)ve material against accused. Lastly, with regard to the reply filed by complainant, the pe(cid:20)(cid:20)oner has no concern with M/s Navpreet Enterprise. 5. The pe(cid:20)(cid:20)oner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent condi(cid:20)ons and contends that further pre-trial incarcera(cid:20)on would cause an irreversible injus(cid:20)ce to the pe(cid:20)(cid:20)oner and their family. 6. The State as well as counsel for the complainant opposes bail and refers to the status report. He has drawn aGen(cid:20)on of this Court to paras 4 to 6 of the status report, which reads as follows: “4. That preliminary enquiry on the above noted applica7on of the complainant was conducted by the ACP-PBI, Economics and Cyber Offences, Ludhiana during which the above noted allega7ons of the complainant were established and it was revealed that the present pe77oner and Munish Kumar were the agents of one M/s Luthra and Company-Phagwara and they in connivance with said Amarjit Singh Bha" prepared fake invoices of the said M/s. Luthra and Company amoun7ng to Rs.1.00 Crore and therea6er got refunded an amount of Rs.18,00,020/- under the pretext of GST refund from the complainant's firm in the name of Luthra and Company and therea6er the said amount was got deposited 3 JYOTI 2025.01.30 14:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-37576-2024 from the bank in the bank account of some other firm namely Krishna Enterprises-Mandi Gobindgarh and within two hours the same was withdrawn. However, the bank was also at fault and on pressuring the bank i.e. Yes Bank, the said money was deposited by Yes Bank in the complainant's bank account. The said fake invoices of said M/s. Luthra and Company prepared by the pe77oner and Munish Kumar in the name of complainant's firm, were also taken into possession. It was further revealed that the above said Amarjit Singh Bha" in connivance with his other accomplices got deposited a total amount of Rs.1,19,35,880/- as GST refund from the complainant on the basis of fake invoices and therea6er withdrawn the same. Fake invoices were raised in the names of M/s. Ni7n Trading Co., Luthra and company, Navpreet Enterprises, Prabhdayal Enterprises, Ram Enterprises and Shiv Traders. However, GST amounts were got deposited in the bank accounts of M/s. P.K. Enterprises, Navpreet Enterprises, V.K. Trading Co., Aadi Shak7 Jewellers and Satkar Enterprises. Some of the firms had deposited a total amount of Rs.80.00 Lac in the bank account of the complainant when the complainant had moved the complaint to the police but the remaining amount of Rs.39,35,880/- has not been deposited with the complainant's firm. ROLE OF THE PETITIONER: The present pe77oner and Munish Kumar were the Agents of above noted firm M/s. Luthra and Company, Phagwara and they in connivance with said Amarjit Singh Bha"-Accountant of the complainant, had prepared fake invoices of Rs.1.00 Crore of their said firm M/s. Luthra and Company- Phagwara and therea6er received payment of Rs.18,00,020/- as GST refund from the complainant on the basis of fake invoices and therea6er got deposited the said GST amount of Rs.18,00,020/- in bank account of one other firm namely Krishna Enterprises, Mandi Gobindgarh and a6er two hours withdrawn the said money. The pe77oner was also conniving with other account holders in whose accounts the GST amount was deposited on the basis of fake invoices. The above noted enquiry report of the ACP was further examined and verified by the ADCP-HQ, Ludhiana and finally the same was approved as well by the Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana. Accordingly FIR No.77 dated 02.06.2023, u/s 408, 420, 120-B IPC P.S. Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana (Annexure P-1) was registered against the pe77oner and his co-accused Amarjit Singh Bha", Munish Kumar, Janak Singh, Pardeep Kumar (owner 4 JYOTI 2025.01.30 14:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-37576-2024 of fake firm P.K. Enterprises), Navpreet Singh (owner of firm Navpreet Enterprises), Vikram Singh (owner of firm V.K. Trading Company), Gursewak Singh (owner of firm Adi Shak7 Jewellers) and Joginder Singh alias Akash (owner of firm Satkar Enterprises. 5. That during the inves7ga7on, the above noted fake invoices of M/s. Luthra and Company-Phagwara, prepared by the pe77oner, were taken into possession by the Inves7ga7ng Officer. Statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C of the complainant was recorded on 03.06.2024 in which the complainant has levelled specific allega7ons against the pe77oner that the pe77oner in connivance with his Accountant Amarjit Singh Bha" has prepared fake invoices and got deposited amount in fake bank accounts. As fake documents were prepared by the pe77oner and his co-accused, therefore offences u/s 467, 468, 471 IPC have also been added in this case. 6. That thus the pe77oner, who was the Agent of firm M/s Luthra and Company, Phagwara, prepared its fake invoice of Rs.1.00 crore in connivance with his co-accused and thereby got deposited GST payment of Rs.18,00,020/- from the complainant and therea6er fraudulently got it deposited in the bank account of one Krishna Enterprises -Mandi Gobindgarh and withdrawn the same within two hours. Therefore, the pe77oner is not en7tled for the concession of an7cipatory bail which is an extra ordinary relief and the same is granted only in excep7onal cases.” 7. State counsel submits that there is evidence of call record and the pe(cid:20)(cid:20)oner created 6-7 fake forms and custodial interroga(cid:20)on is required to unearth the scam and to find out the modus-operandi and to recover the ill-goGen money. 8. Analyzing the pleadings as well as the status report filed by the State clearly
Decision
pending applica(cid:20)ons, if any, are disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 30.01.2025 Jyo1-II Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Yes No. JYOTI 2025.01.30 14:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 6