Punjab-Haryana High Court
Randhir Singh vs State Of Punjab on 19 October, 2023
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:136984
CRM-M-20540-2021 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-20540-2021
Reserved on: 02.08.2023
Pronounced on: 19.10.2023
Randhir Singh ... Pe oner(s)
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent (s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present:- Mr. Abdul Aziz, Advocate and
Mohd. Yousaf, Advocate
for the pe oner(s).
Mr. Aman Pal, Addl. AG, Punjab.
***
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 who appeared as a witness in the sale deed executed in viola on of order of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India, whereby there was restrained in aliena on of property, apprehending arrest in the FIR cap oned above, has come up to this Court under Sec on 438 CrPC seeking an cipatory bail by filing the present pe on on 18.05.2021.
2. In paragraph 25 of the bail pe on, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.
3. The present pe on was listed for the first me on 25.05.2021 however the Court kept on adjourning the ma@er but the pe oner did not get any interim bail. It was for the first me when vide order dated 14.01.2022 a Coordinate bench of this Court had ordered that no coercive steps shall be taken against the pe oner for the reasons that similarly placed other accused had been granted such relief. Interim order was con nued ll 26.08.2022 on which 1 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 21-10-2023 07:27:25 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:136984 CRM-M-20540-2021 2 date this Court had directed the pe oner to declare assets. Vide order dated 18.05.2023 this Court had granted interim bail to the pe oner subject to complying with the condi ons and the said order is con nuing ll date.
4. 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.
5. The state's counsel opposes the bail and states that considering the allega ons, the pe oner's custodial interroga on is necessary and he is not even coopera ng in the inves ga on.
6. 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.
7. 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 aJer that, the Punjab Police. As per the reply/affidavit dated 3.3.2021, people were filing complaints, and based on one 2 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 21-10-2023 07:27:25 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:136984 CRM-M-20540-2021 3 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.
8. In the mean me, the ma@er went to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which cons tuted a commi@ee 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 Commi@ee issued advisories to the people at large not to deal with the proper es of PACL within or outside India.
9. 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.
10. AJer 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.
11. In para 20 of the reply dated 07.07.2023, State has make out a case against the pe oner, which reads as follows:-
"That the allega ons against the accused are that in the year 2006, PACL Ltd. had purchased area measuring 76 Kanal 12 Marla situated in village Budhewal for considera on of Rs. 1 Crore 34 lacs 50 thousand vide deed No. 208 dated 03.05.2006 and land measuring 54 Kanal 13.5 Marlas vide sale deed No. 239 dated 03.05.2006 situated in village Budhewal in the name of its 3 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 21-10-2023 07:27:25 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:136984 CRM-M-20540-2021 4 employee G.Thyagrajan son of M. Guruswamy, resident of Jawahar Nagar, Bhumia village, Podducherry for considera on Rs. 1,36,68,750/-. G.Thyagrajan died in year 2011. A3er the death of G. Thyagrajan, death cer ficate and an affidavit was produced by Balvir Singh, Sarpanch, Village Budhewal before Sub- Registrar, Koom Kalan, District Ludhiana for transfer of ownership of land by the way of inheritance. At that me, impersonated legal heirs of G. Thyagrajan were produced, who were iden fied by Rampal Singh, Numbardar of village Budhewal, tehsil Koom Kalan, District Ludhiana. On the basis of above said affidavit and death cer ficate of G. Thyagrajan, ownership of the land measuring 131 Kanals 5.5 Marla owned by G. Thyagrajan was transferred on the names of Suresh Thyagrajan and Kamachi Thyagrajan vide muta on no. 2732. A General Power of A;orney vide deed No. 1563 dated 19.02.2018 was executed by Kamachi Thyagrajan and Suresh Thyagrajan in the favour of Amodh Kumar Jha son of Nilambhar Jha resident of #C-3/87, Rohini Sector-5, New Delhi regarding above said land. Subsequently, Amodh Kumar Jha on the basis of GPA, further sold land measuring 20 Kanal 6 Marla to Tajinder Singh son of Gurmail Siungh resident of Talwandi Kalan vide sale deed no. 40 dated 09.08.2018, land measuring 18 Kanal to Manpreet Singh Dhillon son Major Singh resident of Rampura Phul, District Bathinda vide sale deed no. 43 dated 09.08.2018, land measuring 51 Kanal 16 Marla to Pawan Kumar Goyal son of Kishore Kumar Goyal and Pardeep Kumar son Dharamveer residents of Ludhiana vide sale deed no. 142 dated 13.09.2018 and land measuring 19 Kanal 3 Marla to Kanwar Mahajan son Pardeep Mahajan resident of Ludhiana vide sale deed no. 67 dated 25.04.2019. In the year 2020, the actual legal heirs of G. Thyagrajan had approached Hon'ble Civil Court that muta on no. 2732 was illegally sanc oned in the names of impersonated legal heir namely Suresh Thyagrajan and Kamachi Thyagrajan. The co-accused Balvir Singh Sarpanch, Village Bhudewal, Rampanl Singh Numberdar, Village Budhewal had illegally transferred land owned by G. Tyagranjan to his fake legal heirs and further executed General Power of A;orney in the favor of Amodh Kumar Jha which was witnessed by pe oner Randhir Singh son Bhajan Singh, despite having knowledge of orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court restric ng aliena on of proper es belonging to PACL Ltd, its associate/ group Promoters/Agents/Employees companies/Directors/ and other concerned individuals."
12. Thus, a perusal of the aforesaid reply specifically refers that on general power of a@orney executed in favour of Amodh Kumar Jha witnessed by 4 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 21-10-2023 07:27:25 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:136984 CRM-M-20540-2021 5 Randhir Singh (pe oner), despite acknowledging the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court, as such he is not en tled to bail on this ground alone. Pe oner is the person who iden fied impersonated person as legal heirs of G. Thyagrajan namely Suresh Thyagrajan and Kamachi Thyagrajan.
13. In para 4 of the pe on, pe oner's stand is that he along with two persons take the land of the company on lease and aJer that the company started denying the lease and they filed a civil suit. They have annexed copy of the civil suit which has nothing to do with the allega ons against the pe oner. This is simply to distract this Court from the real issues. In para 8 of the pe on, pe oner's stand is that he is neither broker nor is concerned with the company in any manner. To commit a crime, pe oner cannot only be a broker and he falsely iden fied the persons who were impersonated through which a massive chunk of land was transferred. All this land was purchased from the funds which were taken by the people by making them believe that their money will be doubled. Thus, the money which the people had saved by cuNng meals of their family by postponing their essen al expenditure and saving money from penny to penny, was swindled away by these scamsters. Therefore, the pe oner is not en tled to bail
15. The pe oner's next argument is that he was granted interim on 18.05.2023 and he had complied with the said order and had joined the inves ga on on mul ple occasions. 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 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 therefore. An cipatory bail can be granted only in 5 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 21-10-2023 07:27:25 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:136984 CRM-M-20540-2021 6 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 ensconced 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 oJen 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 suspicion against the accused, it cannot jeopardise the inves ga on, more so when the allega ons are grave in nature.
6 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 21-10-2023 07:27:25 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:136984 CRM-M-20540-2021 7 [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:136984
7 of 7
::: Downloaded on - 21-10-2023 07:27:25 :::