Punjab-Haryana High Court
Barinder Singh Nagra vs State Of Punjab on 19 October, 2023
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:136979
CRM-M-5898-2021 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-5898-2021 (O&M)
Reserved on: 06.09.2023
Pronounced on: 19.10.2023
Barinder Singh Nagra
... Pe oner(s)
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent (s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present:- Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate,
for the pe oner(s).
Mr. Karunesh Kaushal, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. A.P.S. Deol, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Karan Kalia, Advocate
for the complainant.
***
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Sta-on Sec-ons 79 16.07.2020 City Zira, District 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC Ferozepur
1. The pe oner apprehending arrest in the FIR cap oned above, has come up to this Court under Sec on 438 CrPC seeking an cipatory bail.
2. In paragraph 7 of the bail pe on, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.
3. Pe oner's counsel argued that the custodial inves ga on would serve no purpose whatsoever, and the pre-trial incarcera on would cause an irreversible injus ce to the pe oner and family.
4. The state's counsel opposes the bail and states that considering the allega ons, the pe oner's custodial interroga on is necessary.
1 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 21-10-2023 07:41:17 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:136979 CRM-M-5898-2021 2
5. The crime relates to a massive scam involving the general public's thousands of crores of rupees by two companies, i.e., PACL and PFG Limited. The modus operandi of some of the people controlling the PACL and PFG Limited was to persuade innocent investors to invest in the company's plots and lands with an assurance that their money would be doubled quickly. The companies used the services of various unethical agents, who allured and convinced the people about the validity and genuineness of the claims made by PACL and PFG Limited. In the inquiry conducted by CBI, they got sufficient evidence that PACL and PFG Limited were sister concerns and rou ng money by laundering. The primary allega ons are that some Directors, some employees, some agents and some brokers of PACL, and some other persons, in connivance with a large number of Revenue officials, including the pe oner, who was well aware of the fact that the proper es of the PACL were being disposed of at lower circle rates fixed by corrupt Revenue officials, which fact of undervalua on was well within the knowledge of senior Government officers at the highest level.
6. When this Ponzi fraud came to the people's glare, ini ally, the CBI registered FIR No. RC.BD-1/2014/E/004/BS&FC/New Delhi dated 19.02.2014 under Sec ons 409, 411, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IP. In February 2014, the CBI inspected the offices of PACL and confiscated lists of its other assets and subsidiary companies throughout the country. Considering the mammoth volume of the scam, an inquiry was also ini ated by the Enforcement Directorate as well as SEBI, and aHer that, the Punjab Police. As per the reply/affidavit dated 3.3.2021, people were filing complaints, and based on one such complaint by one Pradeep Kumar, the FIR cap oned above was registered by Punjab Police. The CBI had taken possession of around twenty-nine thousand sale deeds pertaining to this company and the CBI also communicated about the crime to the Government of Punjab vide memo. No.24/55/15-S.T.1/9089-08, Chandigarh dated 30.06.2015. They were directed to convey to all the revenue officials that the company's proper es shall only be sold with the prior permission of the concerned Deputy Commissioner.
7. In the mean me, the maIer went to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which cons tuted a commiIee headed by former CJI Jus ce R.M. Lodha (Retd.) for reimbursement of the money belonging to the investors of PACL by disposing of its proper es and its associate companies. The order was passed in Civil Appeal No.13301/2015 on 2.2.2016. Subsequently, vide order dated 25.7.2016, the Hon'ble Supreme Court stayed the sale of proper es of PACL and PFG Limited. The Lodha 2 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 21-10-2023 07:41:17 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:136979 CRM-M-5898-2021 3 CommiIee issued advisories to the people at large not to deal with the proper es of PACL within or outside India.
8. As per the prosecu on, the accused have been highly influen al and rich people and used unfair means to dispose of its proper es. In the inquiry men oned above, the inves gator got substan ve evidence that despite orders passed by the Supreme Court, the PACL and its subsidiary companies illegally and fraudulently, in viola on of the orders of the Supreme Court, disposed of some proper es and, based on such report, the present FIR no.79 dated 16.7.2020, cap oned above, was registered.
9. AHer the registra on of the FIR, a Special Inves ga on Team was cons tuted, headed by the Superintendent of Police, and the DySP and other officials were its members. In the enquiry it transpired that PACL had purchased around 715 acres of land, in its name or the names of its associated companies and names of some individuals.
10. This pe on showed the filing date as 31.01.2021 and listed for the first me on 10.02.2021. Vide order dated 01.03.2021, Coordinate Bench of this Court had directed that no coercive ac on shall be taken against the pe oner ll the next date of hearing. Vide order dated 05.03.2021, the said order dated 01.03.2021 was recalled. However, on 25.03.2021, a Coordinate Bench of this Court had again directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against the pe oner ll the next date, and aHer that, the said order con nued. Vide order dated 26.08.2022, this Court extended the interim subject to the condi on that the pe oner shall declare all his assets. He is stated to have complied with the said order. AHer that, an interim order was extended, and since the interim was to the extent that no coercive shall be taken against the pe oner, as such vide order dated 18.05.2023, this Court granted interim bail to the pe oner, which is con nuing to date.
11. Per para 9 of the reply dated 04.09.2023, G. Tyagranjan expired in 2011. On 01.02.2018, the pe oner contacted the Patwari of Village Budhewal and allegedly introduced himself as Balbir Singh, due to lack of iden fica on but more likely in conspiracy with the said Patwari. He produced one affidavit before the concerned Patwari, and Kamachi Tyagranjan swore the affidavit w/o G. Tyagranjan and Suresh Tyagranjan s/o G. Tyagranjan. Based on such affidavit, revenue authori es entered muta on No.2732 in the revenue record based on inheritance, and the said property of G. Tyagranjan was mutated to the names of his wife Kamachi Tyagranjan and son Suresh Tyagranjan. AHer the transfer of the property described above, Kamachi Tyagranjan and Suresh Tyagranjan executed a general power of aIorney in the name of 3 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 21-10-2023 07:41:17 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:136979 CRM-M-5898-2021 4 Amodh Kumar Jha, resident of C-3/87, Rohini, Sector-5, North-West, Delhi, which was registered with the Sub-Registrar, Koom Kalan vide Vasika No.1563, vide five sale deeds, through the aforesaid General Power of AIorney . Two out of five sale deeds were executed in favor of Pawan Kumar Goel and Kunwar Mahajan, who had purchased 51 Kanal 163/4 Marla (Sale deed No. 142 dated 13.09.2018) and 19 Kanal 3 Marla (Sale deed No. 67 dated 25.04.2019) respec vely. Both Pawan Kumar Goel and Kunwar Mahajan stated that before the then SIT, Barinder Singh Nagra undertook all proceedings regarding the above-said sale deeds. The inves ga on has revealed that the person who impersonated Balbir Singh, Sarpanch was Barinder Singh Nagra. During the inves ga on, it was further been found that some other persons had impersonated Kamachi Tyagranjan and Suresh Tyagranjan. Thus, the inves gator collected evidence that pe oner had conspired, connived, and impersonated to sell the proper es of Kamachi Tyagranjan and Suresh Tyagranjan. Further, as per the inves gator, the pe oner is not coopera ng in iden fying the impersonated persons who conspired to sell the property of M/s PACL purchased in the name of G. Tyagrajan.
12. Para 10 of the reply dated 04.09.2023, reads as follows: -
"10. That M/s PACL had purchased landed property measuring 15 Kanal 4 Marla in Village Ramgarh, District Ludhiana in the name of S. Tyagranjan Murthi son of S.S. Murthi vide Vasika No. 5669 dated 19.06.2006 for considera.on amount of Rs. 1,83,92,000/-. Subsequently, pe..oner Barinder Singh Nagra entered into conspiracy with other persons and got this land transferred in the name of his father-in-law Jeet Singh vide Vasika No. 1632 dated 11.08.2016 for considera.on of just Rs33,13,980/- in viola.on of Hon'ble Supreme Court vide which aliena.on of proper.es belonging to PACL Ltd, its associate/ group companies/Directors/ Promoters/Agents/Employees and other concerned individuals was prohibited. At the .me of execu.on of above men.oned sale deed No. 1632 dated 11.08.2016, co-accused Rampal son Nanak Singh resident of Village Budhewal, District Ludhiana had appeared on behalf of Jeet Singh. Records available with Special Inves.ga.on Team reveals that said land measuring 15 Kanal 4 Marla was further sold to different persons as plots, out of which some sale Nagra.] deeds were witnessed by pe..oner Barinder Singh Nagra."
13. In para 17 of the reply dated 03.03.2021, it is men oned that Jeet Singh, father- in-law of the pe oner, also purchased 9 kanals of land in Village Bhukri Khurd, Sub Tehsil Kumkalan, District Ludhiana from Virshak Builder Pvt. Ltd., which is a subsidiary company of PACL Ltd., vide sale deed No.2018-19-100/31 dated 10.07.2018. In addi on, Jeet Singh also purchased further land of 30 kanals & 17 marlas from GTB Decent City Developers Pvt. Ltd. Company, also a subsidiary of PACL Ltd. The concerned 4 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 21-10-2023 07:41:17 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:136979 CRM-M-5898-2021 5 Deputy Superintendent of Police stated that both the sale deeds violated the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In Para 19, it is again men oned that the pe oner's father-in-law has been an illiterate person, and he opened a joint account with his daughter, i.e., the pe oner's wife, and the pe oner laundered the money through that account. The inves ga on further revealed that the pe oner's accounts were credited around Rs.68 lacs from the account of his father, Jeet Singh, and in addi on to that, co-accused Karamjeet Singh also transferred a sum of Rs.55 lacs to the account of the pe oner. As per the reply dated 04.09.2023, the following transac ons were made in the account of Barinder Singh: -
Sr. Period Amount Amount deposits
No. withdrawn/transferre (in Rs.)
d (in Rs.)
1 19.11.2014 to 30.03.2015 84,75,377/- 98,27,762/-
2 02.04.2015 to 31.03.2016 60,61,632/- 56,40,669/-
3 04.04.2016 to 31.03.2017 48,63,524/- 41,76,113/-
4 07.04.2017 to 31.03.2018 77,58,741/- 75,65,593/-
5 02.04.2018 to 31.03.2019 43,46,151/- 43,08,770/-
6 02.04.2019 to 31.03.2020 93,64,414/- 94,19,993/-
7 03.04.2020 to 31.03.2021 37,70,034/- 37,10,989/-
8 05.04.2021 to 31.03.2022 5,40,525/- 5,38,778/-
14. Pe oner's stand is that he was neither a director nor an employee of PACL and by no means associated with the company or any of his directors. This argument is meaningless because the allega ons are that he purchased the property in the name of his father-in-law and other rela ves and had also impersonated one Sarpanch. Thus, if this argument is accepted, then nobody could have been arraigned as an accused in this FIR unless he was a director or an employee of PACL; and resultantly this argument is untenable.
15. The pe oner's next argument is that he was granted interim protec on on 25.03.2021 and had joined the inves ga on on mul ple occasions; he had even complied with an order dated 18.05.2023 and had also surrendered his weapons. Those interim orders were given only for interim relief and should not be construed as a nego a on or concession for a final hearing. Thus, this argument is also baseless.
16. Given the nature of allega ons, not only the custodial interroga on is required but even otherwise pe oner is not en tled to an cipatory bail. An analysis of the 5 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 21-10-2023 07:41:17 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:136979 CRM-M-5898-2021 6 allega ons and evidence collected does not warrant the grant of bail to the pe oner.
17. In Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar and another (2012) 4 SCC 379, Supreme Court holds, [19]. Parameters for grant of an cipatory bail in a serious offence are required to be sa sfied and further while gran ng such relief, the court must record the reasons therefor. An cipatory bail can be granted only in excep onal circumstances where the court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely been enroped in the crime and would not misuse his liberty. [See D.K. Ganesh Babu v. P.T. Manokaran (2007) 4 SCC 434, State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Sajid Husain Mohd. S. Husain (2008) 1 SCC 213 and Union of India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal (2008) 13 SCC 305].
18. In State rep. by CBI v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187, Supreme Court holds, [6]. We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interroga on is qualita vely more elicita on oriented than ques oning a suspect who is well ensconded with a favourable order under Sec on 438 of the code. In a case like this effec ve interroga on of suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informa ons and also materials which would have been concealed. Succession such interroga on would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulted by a pre-arrest bail during the me he interrogated. Very oHen interroga on in such a condi on would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interroga on is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The court has to presume that responsible Police Officers would conduct themselves in task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders.
19. In Central Bureau of Inves ga on v. Santosh Karnani, Cr.A 1148 of 2023, dated 17-04- 2023, Supreme Court, in an FIR registered under sec ons under Sec ons 7, 13(1) and 13(2) of the Preven on of Corrup on Act, 1988, holds, [24]. The me−tested principles are that no straitjacket formula can be applied for grant or refusal of an cipatory bail. The judicial discre on of the Court shall be guided by various relevant factors and largely it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The Court must draw a delicate balance between liberty of an individual as guaranteed under Ar cle 21 of the Cons tu on and the need for a fair and free inves ga on, which must be taken to its logical conclusion. Arrest has devasta ng and irreversible social s gma, humilia on, insult, mental pain and other fearful consequences. Regardless thereto, when the Court, on considera on of material informa on gathered by the Inves ga ng Agency, is prima facie sa sfied that there is something more than a mere needle of 6 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 21-10-2023 07:41:17 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:136979 CRM-M-5898-2021 7 suspicion against the accused, it cannot jeopardise the inves ga on, more so when the allega ons are grave in nature.
[31]. The nature and gravity of the alleged offence should have been kept in mind by the High Court. Corrup on poses a serious threat to our society and must be dealt with iron hands. It not only leads to abysmal loss to the public exchequer but also tramples good governance. The common man stands deprived of the benefits percola ng under social welfare schemes and is the worst hit. It is aptly said, "Corrup on is a tree whose branches are of an unmeasurable length; they spread everywhere; and the dew that drops from thence, Hath infected some chairs and stools of authority." Hence, the need to be extra conscious.
20. Considering these judicial precedents, the facts, and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons men oned above, the pe oner fails to make a case for bail.
21. Any observa on made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits, neither the court taking up regular bail nor the trial Court shall advert to these comments.
Pe--on dismissed. Interim orders gran-ng bail, stand vacated with immediate effect, and bail bonds are cancelled. All pending applica ons, if any, also stand disposed.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
19.10.2023
anju rani
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: No.
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:136979
7 of 7
::: Downloaded on - 21-10-2023 07:41:17 :::