Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2025 DAILYLAW 33776 (PNJ)

JAGJIT SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB

CRM-M/14194/2025 · 2025-04-28

Sanjiv Berry

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

CRM-M-14194-2025(O&M) -1- 216 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-14194-2025(O&M) Date of decision:-28.04.2025 JAGJIT SINGH ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY. Present:- Mr. B.S.Bhalla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Rajinder Singh Battha, DAG, Punjab. Mr. R.S. Bhatia, Advocate for the complainant. ***** SANJIV BERRY, J. (ORAL) Learned State counsel has filed status report by way of an affidavit dated 02.04.2025 of Assistant Commissioner of Police, Industrial Area-A, Ludhiana, the same is taken on record, copy thereof, has been supplied to the counsel opposite. 2. The instant petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail in the following case (Annexure P-5):- FIR No. Dated Sections Police Station 242 22.10.2024 420, 406, 417, 120-B IPC Jamalpur, Police Commissionerate, Ludhiana o. 2), Mo 3. Arguments heard. 4. It is inter alia contended by learned counsel for the petitioner Gyan Chand 2025.05.09 13:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-14194-2025(O&M) -2- that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case regarding repayment of loan. He contends that the present FIR is an abuse of process of law as the complainant-Bank has already initiated SARFAESI proceedings and two properties of the petitioner have already been auctioned. He further contends that the dispute is civil in nature but has been given the colour of criminal offence. He submits that the petitioner is ready to join investigation, thus, prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, referring to the status report submitted by the State has opposed the bail petition on the ground that petitioner is a habitual offender and has taken huge amount as loan from the consortium Bank led by Punjab National Bank and the said amount has not been repaid. He further contends that the major part of the loan amount was transferred to M/s S.V. Traders who subsequently transferred the amount in the account of the petitioner. He submits that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required to unearth the modus operandi adopted by the petitioner. Hence prayed for dismissal of the bail petition. 6. After considering the rival contentions and perusing the record, it transpires that the instant FIR was registered on the complaint moved by complainant-Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank, Chandigarh against M/s Omax Steel Limited and its Directors for taking loan from consortium bank led by Punjab National Bank by pledging forged and fabricated sale deeds. It has been specifically stated in the status report that the petitioner has misappropriated the machinery pledged with the complainant-Bank as the Gyan Chand 2025.05.09 13:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-14194-2025(O&M) -3- petitioner has disposed off the said machinery and major part of the loan amount was firstly transferred in the account of M/s S.V. Traders, which was later on transferred in the account of the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner has pledged, forged and fabricated sale deeds to avail the aforesaid credit facility, which clearly shows the intention of the petitioner to commit fraud with the complainant-Bank. As per reply submitted by the State, total ₹ recovery of approximately 190,09,24,038/- is to be effected from the petitioner. 7. Considering the aforesaid facts circumstances and the fact that the petitioner happens to be a habitual offender coupled with the magnitude of the fraud, in the present case, does not entitle him to concession of anticipatory bail. As a consequent, the petition is hereby dismissed. 8. Any observation made above shall not be construed as opinion of this Court on the merits of the case. (SANJIV BERRY) JUDGE 28.04.2025 Gyan i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No ii) Whether reportable? Yes/No Gyan Chand 2025.05.09 13:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document