Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sanjay Jain vs State Of Haryana on 3 May, 2012
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-18566 of 2011
Date of Decision: 03.05.2012
***
Sanjay Jain
.. Petitioner
VS.
State of Haryana .. Respondent
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
Present:- Mr. A.S. Sullar, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sagar Deswal, AAG Haryana.
Mr. M.G. Bagga, Advocate
for the complainant.
***
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.
Sanjay Jain, the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in a case registered by way of FIR No. 178 dated 10.5.2011 at Police Station Ambala City for an offence punishable under sections 406, 420 IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that M/s Sai Securities, Ambala had been the franchisee of ANAGRAM COMTRADE Limited dealing in Multi Commodity Exchange (hereinafter referred to as MCX). According to him, the petitioner is a sub-broker of Sai Securities. He has submitted that the complainant Smt. Prem Lata is resident of Ambala City and had deposited various amounts with the petitioner to be invested in MCX. In this regard, he has referred to Annexure P-2 where except in the first receipt, MCX is 2 clearly mentioned. He has submitted that for the first time, she won Rs.20,000/- and thereafter the market came down and she lost her investments.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in MCX one is not required to pay the price of the commodity but he is required to pay only the margin money. He has submitted that the complainant was investing in silver and gold. He has submitted that Annexure P-3 is account statement of Sanjay Jain, a sub-broker of Sai Securities which makes it clear that the complainant has lost her amount on account of the market going down. He has then referred to Annexure P-6 and has submitted that these are the call details made by Prem Lata to Sanjay Jain, by Sanjay Jain to Sanjiv Kumar and then Sanjay Jain calling back to Prem Lata. He has further submitted that Anneuxres P-5 and P-7 are the affidavits of the people of the sarafa bazar and the market people who have stated in their affidavits that Prem Lata was buying/ selling gold and silver on MCX with Sanjay Jain. He has further submitted that the call details are so large in number which clearly show that the complainant had not approached the petitioner for purchasing the gold in physical form but was trading in gold as per the terms of MCX and was trying to make fast money.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the persons of Sai Securities would not pick up the phones of the persons who are not registered with them. According to him, they pick up the phones of those persons only who are registered with them. 3 According to him, all the people of sarafa bazar have testified in their affidavits that Prem Lata was buying/ selling gold and silver on MCX and not in physical form. According to him, if she was, as she claims, to purchase gold in physical form as ornaments for wedding of her daughter and was paying the money as price of those gold ornaments in installments, there was no question of her making 248 calls to the petitioner in a short period from 1.12.2010 to 5.2.2011. According to him, as at the MCX she suffered losses, she has made out a false case against the petitioner.
Learned State counsel has submitted, on the other hand, that Annexure P-3 does not show that market price of gold or silver ever came down. According to him, Sai Securities is run by Sanjiv Kumar and Manmohan Bajaj and they have been examined by the investigating officer during investigation and they have given their affidavits to the effect that petitioner Sanjay Jain never had any dealings with them. They have also stated in their affidavits that they have not invested any amount in MCX through said Sanjay Jain. According to him, they have also stated that Sanjay Jain used to make telephone calls to them just to ask the rate of gold and silver. They have also stated that they have no demat account of Sanjay Jain with them and that they have not authorized Sanjay Jain for any transaction.
Learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, has submitted that the petitioner has admitted the receipt of Rs.4,70,000/-. Learned counsel for the complainant has drawn 4 attention of the court towards client registration kit(Annexure C-12) and has submitted that if Sanjay Jain was sub-broker of Sai Securities, he should have satisfied the mandatory requirements of this document. According to him, when this dispute arose, the people of the market got effected a compromise between the parties in which the petitioner was to repay the aforesaid amount to the complainant for which a time schedule was fixed. According to him, the said payments were also not made.
The main reliance of the petitioner for bail is on three aspects. The first is the receipts which mention the amount received as on account of MCX. The second is the call details made between the complainant and the petitioner and the third is the affidavits of the petitioner and other members of the sarafa bazar. These three documents are claimed to prove the plea of the petitioner that the complainant had come to invest the money in MCX and that she has lost the money and the petitioner has not committed any offence in relation to her money.
The positive case of the petitioner is that he is a sub- broker of Sai Securities. When Sanjiv Kumar and Manmohan Bajaj, the persons running Sai Securities have come openly with the affidavits that Sanjay Jain is not their sub-broker and that he has never made any investment with them in MCX, his case suffers a huge set back.
The complainant is a widowed Class-IV employee of Ambala Courts. She probably cannot understand the word MCX 5 mentioned in the receipts. The statement of account(Annexure P-3) clearly shows that price of gold or silver never came down and there was no scope of loss of such a huge amount in the said transactions. The call details would not improve anything in the face of statements of the people of Sai Securities.
In these circumstances, I do not find the petitioner to be entitled to pre-arrest bail. The principles governing the grant of anticipatory bail laid down in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and others 2011 AIR(SC) 312, cited by learned counsel for the petitioner, do not stand attracted to the facts of this case. The petition is, consequently, dismissed.
May 03,2012 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) Jiten JUDGE