Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sandeep Singla vs State Of Haryana on 3 February, 2011
Author: S.S. Saron
Bench: S.S. Saron
`In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
......
Criminal Misc. No.M-12933 of 2010
.....
Date of decision:3.2.2011
Sandeep Singla
.....Petitioner
v.
State of Haryana
.....Respondent
....
Present: Mr. T.S. Sangha, Senior Advocate with Mr. J.S. Lalli,
Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. H.S. Deol, Additional Advocate General, Haryana
for the respondent-State.
Mr. R.S. Rai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sapan Dhir, Advocate
for the complainant.
......
S.S. Saron, J.
The petitioner prays for grant of pre-arrest bail in a case registered against him on 6.4.2010 for the offences under Sections 420, 406, 463, 464, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B Indian Penal Code.
The FIR in the case has been registered against the petitioner, against M/s U.B.M. Share Trading, SCO No.7, Ist Floor, Sector 10, Panchkula and M/s Vivek Financial Focus Ltd., SCO No.7, Ist Floor, Sector 10, Panchkula on the complaint of Anubhav Singla. It has been alleged by the complainant that fraud and cheating has been committed with him by constructing false and fabricated documents with a view to cheat him and grab his entire shares, dividends and bonus money. It has been alleged that the complainant along with his parents owns various shares of numerous companies and they had their respective savings as well as Demat accounts Cr. Misc. No.M-12933 of 2010 [2] in various banks including the UTI Bank Limited from where the complainant and his parents were operating their share trading etc. The sisters of the complainant were operating their shares trading of their own similar kind of accounts in the said banks. In the year 2002, the accused Sandeep Singla (petitioner) came in contact with the complainant and his (complainant's) brother Rohit Singla. The petitioner resided with the complainant at House No.907, Sector 9, Panchkula. At that time, the petitioner was posted as Manager of the IndusInd Bank Limited, Sector 11, Panchkula (`Bank' - for short). Since the petitioner and the complainant and also the brother of the complainant were residing together in the same house, they developed cordial relations amongst themselves. The complainant and his family started treating the petitioner as a family member in the house. Because of the said relations, the petitioner asked the complainant and his parents to open a new bank account and to shift all their shares etc. to the new accounts as he would monitor all these things (transactions) in the IndusInd Bank as he was Manager there. On the asking of the petitioner, the entire family of the complainant got their savings and Demat accounts opened in the IndusInd Bank Branch Sector 11, Panchkula and started their transactions through the said account. The petitioner some time in the year 2003 took certain voucher slips of various shares of the complainant and his family members lying in their house without any information to the complainant or any of his family members. Thereafter, since the petitioner was posted on the seat of sales or purchases of shares in the Bank, he sold the shares of the complainant and his family members in collusion with the other two other accused, namely, M/s U.B.M. Share Cr. Misc. No.M-12933 of 2010 [3] Trading and M/s Vivek Financial Focus Ltd. Thereby he misappropriated the payments which he received from the sale of shares. During this time, the complainant and his family members were unaware of these transactions. They did ask the petitioner to issue statements of the share holdings in the Demat accounts. Every time the petitioner used to give fabricated statements of accounts of the complainant and his family members under his signatures and some times without his signatures. These statements, it is submitted, were fabricated by the petitioner just to show that the shares etc. were being transacted from the accounts of the complainant and his family members only. In this regard certain copies of the fabricated/false statements issued by the petitioner were attached for ready reference. In this manner, it is alleged that the petitioner in collusion with the other accused enjoyed the amounts of the said shares in his account and even obtained bonus, dividends etc. in his own account without any information to the complainant. Thereafter, in the year 2006, the complainant had an apprehension that there was misappropriation in his accounts as well as in the accounts of his family members. The complainant and his family members approached the head office of IndusInd Bank Limited at Mumbai to issue statements of their respective accounts which were issued by the Mumbai Head Office of the IndusInd Bank in the month of December 2006. The complainant also got his earlier Savings Bank Account No.0090781259001 closed and got opened a new account No.0090781259002. On going through the statement (Annexure-C.3) which was received in the month of December 2006, the complainant found that the petitioner had duped him and his family members by Cr. Misc. No.M-12933 of 2010 [4] misappropriating `25 to `27 Lacs. On coming to know this, the complainant and his family members asked the petitioner as to why he committed such a fraud with the complainant and his family members. The petitioner, however, stated that he required some money and he would return the entire amount within some time. Thereafter, the petitioner shifted his residence from the house of the complainant. The complainant approached the petitioner on several occasions but he gave lame excuses on one pretext or the other. The complainant then approached some respectable persons and in their presence he was assured by the petitioner that he would get all the shares of the complainant and his family members transferred in their own names from his account and also return the money relating to bonuses, dividends etc. which he used illegally. However, till date the money has not been returned. It is alleged that the petitioner also gave in his own hand- writing on an ordinary slip in this regard but he has not complied with the same. The complainant finding no other alternative approached the Manager of IndusInd Bank Limited, Sector 11, Panchkula in terms of letter dated 3.5.2007 but the same did not have any effect. In the meantime, the complainant also gave complaints in this respect to the SHO, Dhuri as well as SSP Sangrur (Punjab) but no action was taken. The complainant was advised by the Dhuri Police to file a complaint with the Panchkula Police as the incident had occurred in Panchkula only. Accordingly, the complaint was being filed. The petitioner instead of returning back the money of the complainant and his family members had started threatening the complainant one way or the other. In this manner, it is alleged that the petitioner has committed a huge fraud and had cheated the complainant and Cr. Misc. No.M-12933 of 2010 [5] his family members and had illegally fabricated and forged certain documents and accounts. The complainant and his family members are law abiding and peaceful citizens and, therefore, it was prayed that FIR for the offences as mentioned may be registered.
Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that no shares of the complainant were transferred to the account of the petitioner and no bonuses were ever received by the petitioner. The complainant in fact sold his shares in the year 2003 to Sumeet Gupta and later in the year 2006 on the asking of the complainant he purchased certain shares and transferred them to the account of the complainant. Besides, the petitioner has joined the investigation with the Police on several occasions.
In response, learned counsel for the State and learned senior counsel appearing for the complainant have submitted that the petitioner has committed a huge fraud, inasmuch as, he gave Bank statements on his own and under his signatures. Such statements are not issued by the Bank. In this regard, the statement of Ms. Monika, Assistant Branch Manager of the IndusInd Bank, Sector 11, Panchkula has been recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Besides, a reference has been made to the statement of account which is on the Police file wherein he has carried out transactions of about `20 Crores during the year 2003-04 in his own account. It is submitted that the petitioner had given forged statements of accounts of the complainant.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. It may be noticed that during the course of investigation the statement of Ms. Monika, Assistant Branch Manager of IndusInd Bank, Sector 11, Panchkula has been recorded. In her Cr. Misc. No.M-12933 of 2010 [6] supplementary statement recorded on 13.1.2011 she has stated as under:-
"Apart from my earlier statement, I further state that today I remained present during the investigation of this case with you. On your request, I have produced before you the original share transfer voucher No.894511 to 894515, 01729094, 01729095, 2122692, 2122752, 2122925 and Computer Printout Transaction Statement client I.D. No.10411765 in respect of Anubhav Singla dated 1.9.04 to 2007, which has been given to you and you have taken the same in Police possession vide memo. I have put my signatures on the memo as a witness. I have seen the copy of share statement of Account No.10411765 in respect of Anubhav Singla with you, which pertains to Feb. 05 and bears the signatures of Sandeep Singla as well as the stamp of the Bank. I identify the signatures of Sandeep Singla because he is account holder of our bank. No such share statement is issued to any client from our Bank. This statement has been issued wrongly. Only the Transaction Statement is issued by the Bank to the client. In the Transaction Statement I.D. No.10411765 which I have presented before you, the shares of Dabur India Ltd. pertaining to year 2005 have been shown as nil share whereas in the statement shown by you which is bearing the signatures of Sandeep Singla, the number of shares have been shown as 100. Similarly, 300 shares of Federal Bank have been mentioned as on 8th Feb. 2005 and 300 shares have been shown in the other statement. Number of Cr. Misc. No.M-12933 of 2010 [7] shares of ICICI Bank in Feb. 2005 have been mentioned as nil and in the statement 96 shares have been mentioned. Number of shares of Kotak Mahindra Bank as on 8th Feb. 2005 have been mentioned as 302 whereas in the statement 801 shares have been mentioned. 1700 shares of Morgan Stanley have been mentioned in Feb. 2005 whereas in the statement 5200 shares have been mentioned. No. of shares of Nestle in Feb. 2005 is shown as nil and in the statement there are 186 shares; number of shares of Oriental Bank in Feb. 2005 is shown as nil and in the statement there are 200 shares; numbers of shares of Reliance Industries in Feb. 2005 is shown as nil and in the statement there are 108 shares, 9 shares of Vardhman Hoarding in Feb. 2005 are shown while in the statement 327 shares have been shown. The statement bearing the signatures of Sandeep Singla is different from Transaction Statement. Sandeep Singla has prepared this statement illegally, in which more shares than the actual ones have been shown. I have got recorded my statement with you, which is correct."
A perusal of the above shows that the statement which is signed by Sandeep Singla (petitioner) had been wrongly prepared by him and the companies as mentioned do not reflect the actual share but enhanced shares have been shown. Besides, it may be noticed that in the yearly account statement of the petitioner from M/s U.B.M. Share Trading, Panchkula insofar as the account of the petitioner is concerned he has 100 shares which have been transferred to Federal Bank which has transferred 50 shares in the Cr. Misc. No.M-12933 of 2010 [8] account of ICICI Bank and 100 shares of Morgan Stanley have been taken from the account of the complainant and transferred to the account of the petitioner.
The case involves commission of fraud relating to substantial amount for which the custodial interrogation of the petitioner would be required in the evidence collecting process. It is well known that considerations governing the grant of pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. are materially different from that seeking post-arrest bail or for that matter even seeking suspension of sentence pending appeal before a higher Court. In a case where pre-arrest bail is sought the advantage of custodial interrogation of eliciting more and useful information and material is to be kept in view. Besides, the exercise of power to grant pre-arrest bail is somewhat extra-ordinary in character.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, no ground for grant of pre-arrest bail is made out. The criminal miscellaneous petition is accordingly dismissed.
February 3, 2011. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*