Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sandeep Singh Mahal vs State Of Punjab on 19 October, 2023
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:137075
CRMM309802023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRMM309802023
Reserved on: 24.08.2023
Pronounced on: 19.10.2023
Sandeep Singh Mahal ...Pe oner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. R.S. Bains, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Gopal Singh Nahel, Advocate for the pe oner.
Mr. Karunesh Kaushal, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. A.P.S. Deol, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Vishal R. Lamba, Advocate for the complainant.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Sta0on Sec0ons
79 16.07.2020 City Zira, District 406, 420, 419, 467, 468, 471,
Ferozepur 384, 120B IPC
1. The pe oner, who has been incarcerated for around ten months allegedly for extor ng money from the allo;ees of land belonging to Pearl Group by misusing his power as Director, by sending no ces to around one thousand such persons, who owned or possessed proper es belonging to PACL, and under the garb of such no ces took or demanded money, had come up before this Court, seeking regular bail.
2. This ma;er was listed for the first me on 06.07.2023. Since there are a bunch of other ma;ers that were also listed along with this ma;er, the hearing was being adjourned on one pretext or the other; as such, this court decided to hear the ma;ers separately and to pronounce the judgments on the same date.
3. In paragraph 15 of the bail applica on, the accused declares the following criminal antecedents:
Sr. No. FIR No. Date Offences Police Sta on
1. 01 21.02.2023 406, 420, 465, 467, Punjab State Crime, Police
468, 471, 384, 120B Sta on SAS Nagar,
IPC Crime Wing, Panjab
1
1 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 21-10-2023 07:52:06 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:137075
CRMM309802023
4. As per the State, during the inves ga on conducted by CBI, a fraud of around Rs.49,000 crores, (490 billion INR) affec ng 4.5 crore (45 million) investors was unearthed. The State opposes the bail on the grounds that the accused is one of the main accused, who acted not only in contraven on but in a contemptuous manner against orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. On 01.01.2022, he showed that an Extra Ordinary General Mee ng (EOGM) of shareholders of PACL in which four resolu ons were shown to have been passed by shareholders of PACL in which the pe oner was appointed as a director. On having being appointed as a Director, he entered into a conspiracy with other coaccused, and he used the stamp and le8erhead of M/s PACL and issued no ces to various people for extor ng money from them on the pretext of se8ling their dispute qua the property owned any possessed by them. Thus, given the nature of the allega ons, the pe oner is not en tled to bail at this stage.
5. The concerned Deputy Superintendent of Police filed reply dated 26.07.2023 and it would be appropriate to refer facts given in para Nos. 17 to 23, which reads as follows:
[17]. That during the course of inves ga on of the case by SIT of BOI, a complaint dated 30.11.2022 was received by the Director, BOI cum ADGP, Prisons, Punjab from Sh. Virender Sethi, R/o Delhi alleging that Sandeep Singh Mahal and two other persons namely Hirdaypal Singh Dhillon and Dharmendra Singh Sandhu were fraudulently made Directors of PACL Ltd. based on forged documents regarding Extra Ordinary Shareholder Mee ng (hereinaCer referred as EOGM) of shareholders held on 01.01.2022 at registered office of PACL Ltd., at Jaipur, that is nonfunc onal since 2014.
[18]. That the complaint was marked by the Director, BOI to Sh. Avtar Chand, DSP for enquiry and during the course of enquiry various persons were collected. Hence, FIR No. 01 dated 21.02.2023 u/s 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 384, 120B IPC of Police Sta on Punjab State Crime, SAS Nagar has been registered.
[19]. That the allega ons against the accused pe oner are that on 01.01.2022, an Extra Ordinary General Mee ng (EOGM) of shareholders of PACL Company was shown to be held at the company's registered office at #22, 3rd Floor, Amber Tower, Sansar Chandra Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan, in which a forged resolu on was shown to be passed by the shareholders of PACL company, according to which Hirdaypal Singh Dhillon s/o Raminderpal Singh Dhillon r/o village Phulawala, Model Town Ludhiana; Sandeep Singh Mahal s/o Gurmej Singh r/o H.No. 299, Near Sub Center, Jawadi Kalan, PS Dugri, Ludhiana; the pe oner wherein and Dharmendra Singh Sandhu s/o Balwinder Singh Sandhu r/o H.No. 209, Phase2, Rama Mandi, Jalandhar, were appointed as three new directors of the Company. It is also 2 2 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 21-10-2023 07:52:06 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:137075 CRMM309802023 worth men oning here that to call this EOGM, provisions of sec ons 100, 101 and 103 of the Companies Act, 2013 have not been complied with by the requisi onists/ par cipants and neither 10% ac ve shareholders had physically a*ended the mee ng. Witnesses examined during inves ga on who have been shown as a*endees of the mee ng held on 01.01.2022 at registered office of PACL Ltd. at Jaipur, Rajasthan have revealed that they did not a*end such a mee ng neither any no ce for the said mee ng was served to them.
[20]. According to the report of DCP North Jaipur, Rajasthan dated 05.05.2022, PACL Office 22, 3rd Floor, Amber Tower, Sansar Chandra Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan was in opera on from 1996 to 2014, but therea=er the office is closed ll date. According to the report of Assistant Engineer C3, JVVNL, Ajmeri Gate, Jaipur, the electricity connec on of the said office was disconnected/closed on 30.03.2016 for not paying the electricity bill. Apart from this, according to the report of Mr. Chandu Modi, the caretaker of that building and Vijay Kumar Sharma, the employee working in the adjacent office of above office, the office has been closed for the last 78 years.
[21]. That, it has been revealed during the inves ga on that three persons, including the pe oner herein, were fraudulently appointed as Directors of M/s PACL based on resolu on said to be passed in the alleged EOGM that actually did not take place. Forms DIR12 for newly appointed three Directors were digitally signed by Sukhdev Singh, MD, PACL Ltd., who has been in jail since the year 2016.
[22]. That Sukhdev Singh MD PACL had filed 1.A. No. 57214/2021 in Civil Appeal No. 13410/2015 field before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had prayed to nominate Hirdaypal Singh Dhillon as authorized person of PACL Ltd. which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 04.05.2021. This Hirdaypal Singh Dhillon is one of the three Directors appointed unlawfully and fraudulently on the basis of forged documents.
[23]. That a=er being made as new Director of PACL and a=er entering into conspiracy with coaccused to commit fraud and to forge documents, accused pe oner Sandeep Singh Mahal used the stamp and le*er heads of M/s PACL Ltd., and issued no ces to various persons associated with the company's property and extorted money from them on the pretext of se*ling the dispute with Lodha Commi*ee qua proper es owned and/or possessed by them. Sandeep Singh Mahal has also admi*ed in his statement that no ces were issued to around 1000 persons/companies who own/possess PACL proper es.
33 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 21-10-2023 07:52:06 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:137075 CRMM309802023 REASONING:
6. Mr. R.S.Bains, Senior Advocate for the pe%%oner, argued that the pe%%oner was a whistleblower and innocent person and had no role. The pe%%oner's counsel argued that as a whistleblower, he had made various representa%ons to the Lodha Commi/ee to take ac%on against the guilty persons for wrong, and now the persons who were against him for bringing their wrongdoings to light have ganged up against him, and have to mislead the inves%gator. The pe%%oner's ground is that he is helping Hon'ble Mr. Jus%ce Lodha's Commi/ee to recover the amount. Counsel for the pe%%oner further submits that even respondent No.2Manjit Singh Kanjla had sold the land belonging to PACL as Vice President of the Chit Fund Society for Rs. 65 crores, and the said amount was not deposited with the Lodha Commi/ee. Now, he is airing such issues against him and opposing his bail pe%%on. The pe%%oner claims to have brought to light some wrongdoings; however, the case against him is that he also did massive wrongdoings. He not only misused his posi%on but wanted to cheat innocent investors. On the concerns expressed against the 2nd respondent, this court is not adjudica%ng the present pe%%on based on any arguments advanced by respondent No.2 or on his behalf or pleadings filed by him. Only the State's conten%ons are being looked into against the pe%%oner. I have perused the pe%%oner's documents, and the same does not corroborate the arguments advanced by Mr. Bains.
7. Counsel for the pe%%oner has argued that the pe%%oner was appointed as a director on 01.01.2022, and he has been in custody since 25.11.2022. Thus, when he was appointed director, the scam had already taken place, and he could not have any role in such a scam. The pe%%oner has referred to the order dated 01.06.2023 passed by this Court in CRMM281342023 in which this Court had stayed the "proceedings beyond the cognizance stage." it was clarified in the end that there was neither any stay on the inves%ga%on nor on the filing of the police report. Although it remains undisputed that the pe%%oner was appointed as a Director aDer the main scam had taken place, the allega%on against the pe%%oner is that he also wanted to have a share in the booty, and once he got the posi%on as a Director, he also made all efforts to extort money from the people, as such, on this ground alone, he is not en%tled to bail. Thus, by no stretch of imagina%on, this Court had stayed the proceedings on merits against the pe%%oner.
8. A perusal of the inves%ga%on so far refers to specific evidence of the pe%%oner extor%ng money on the pretext of se/ling the dispute. The PACL and its sister's concerns are involved in a massive scam, which is one of the biggest in the country, whereby money of poor people was allured to invest in a Chit Fund type Ponzi scheme whereby they were assured that their money would be doubled and subsequently, a large number 4
4 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 21-10-2023 07:52:06 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:137075 CRMM309802023 of such investors were duped. Assurances were also given that they would get land and the price would double in a very short !me, and as such, to realize their dreams, the unsuspec!ng people in the state spent their hardearned money on these scamsters. When the pe!!oner got an opportunity to run the company, he also tried to extort money from those who had fraudulently or otherwise obtained the proper!es of PACL and its sister's concerns.
9. The pe!!oner is further seeking bail on the grounds of prolonged incarcera!on. Given the massive scams, the current custody cannot be termed prolonged custody under any stretch of the imagina!on.
10. A perusal of the bail pe!!on and the documents a.ached, primafacie points towards the pe!!oner's involvement and does not make out a case for bail. Any further discussions are likely to prejudice the pe!!oner; this court refrains from doing so.
11. Any observa!on made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the merits of the case nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.
12. The pe!!on is dismissed. All pending applica!ons, if any, stand closed.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
19.10.2023
Jyo -II
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: No.
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:137075
5
5 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 21-10-2023 07:52:06 :::