CRM-M-37576-2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-37576-2024 Reserved on: 13.01.2025 Pronounced on: 30.01.2025 Goldy Walia @ Janak Singh ...Peoner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Rehat Bir Singh Mann, Advocate for the peoner. Mr. Sukhdev Singh, A.A.G, Punjab. Ms. Krima Sareen, Advocate and Mr. Pratham Sethi, Advocate for the complainant. **** ANOOP CHITKARA, J. FIR No. Dated Police Sta1on Sec1ons 77 02.06.2023 Sarabha Nagar, District Police Commissionerate Ludhiana 408, 420, 120-B IPC 1. The peoner apprehending arrest in the FIR caponed above has come up before this Court under Secon 482 of Bharaya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking ancipatory bail. 2. In paragraph 17 of the bail peon, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents. 3. The facts and allegaons are being taken from the reply filed by the State, which reads as follows: “3. xxxxx It was alleged by the complainant that he runs a company under the name and style of M/s. B.S. Steel which is engaged in the business of import Machinery and Scrap. One Amarjit Singh Bha" was the Accountant in the said company of the complainant since the year 2008. The complainant resides at America and he came to India in the year 2022 when the said Accountant Amarjit Singh Bha" told the complainant that he has done business deal (Purchase) with various companies/firms and that for making refund payments of GST to those companies/firms, 1 JYOTI 2025.01.30 14:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-37576-2024 Amarjit Singh Bha" got signed Cheques from the complainant. It was further alleged that the said Amarjit Singh Bha" had shown one Purchase Invoice of Rs.1.00 Crore to the complainant of one firm M/s. Luthra and Company for which the complainant paid GST of Rs.18,00,020/- through RTGs in the name of said Luthra and Company. However, therea6er the said Luthra and Company moved a complaint to the police that their Agents i.e. the present pe77oner and others have prepared its fake invoices in the name of the complainant's company. During the enquiry in the said complaint by the police, it was revealed that the said amount of Rs.18,00,020/- was firstly got deposited from the complainant in the name of Luthra and Company and therea6er the said amount was got deposited fraudulently by the present pe77oner and Munish Kumar in the bank account of some other firm namely Krishna Enterprises-Mandi Gobindgarh and within two hours the same was withdrawn. However, on pressuring the bank i.e. Yes Bank, the said money was deposited by Yes Bank in the complainant's bank account. It was further alleged that therea6er the complainant checked his record during which it was revealed that total GST of Rs.1,19,35,880/- has been got deposited from the complainant's firm through RTGs on the basis of fake invoices. Even payments were not deposited in the names of the firms whose fake invoices were prepared and rather the payments were got deposited in some other bank accounts. It was further alleged that the said Amarjit Singh Bha" in connivance with his accomplices and also the bank officials, got deposited a total amount of Rs.1,19,35,880/- from the complainant on the basis of fake invoices and therea6er withdrawn the same within two hours.” 4. The peoner’s counsel submits that no money was received by the peoner(s) either into their respecve accounts or by any other mode. The enre allegaons levelled by the complainant are against his accountant/co-accused Amarjot Singh BhaB who is absconding. He submits that out of the disputed amount of Rs. 1,19,35,890/-, more than two-third amount i.e. Rs.80,00,000/- has been returned to the complainant. He submits the Invesgang Agency cannot assume the role of a recovery agent. He relied upon the judgments in the cases of Lalit Chaturvedi v. State of U4ar Pradesh, 2024(2) RCR (Criminal) 73 and Bimla Tiwari v. State of Bihar, 2023(1) RCR (Criminal) 773. He submits that subsequent to receiving money during the course of inquiry, the complainant compromised the maGer with the peoners. Now, since the complainant cannot get hold of his accountant/co-accused Amarjot Singh BhaB, he has backtracked 2 JYOTI 2025.01.30 14:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-37576-2024 on his compromise so as to make the peoners hostage. He further submits that the peoners have no concern with the complainant. The very basis of the nominaon of the peoners in the present case is one complaint given by a firm Luthra & Co.' to Kapurthala Police claiming that the peoners were their employees and they were generang fake bills in the firm's company. It is pernent to menon herein that no acon has been taken on the said complaint by the Kapurthala Police i.e. no merit was found in the complaint. He submits that in para No. 4 of the reply filed by the State, the only role aGributed to the peoners is that they were employees of "M/s Luthra & Co." and they prepared fake invoices and received an amount of Rs.18,00,020/-. It is pernent to menon herein that even if the said allegaons are believed to be true, the said amount stands deposited back into complainant's account and the said fact has also come in State's reply itself (Page No. 5). He further submits that the present case is covered by the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2014 RCR (Criminal) 527 as well as noficaon no. 159 Gaz. II (17) dated 22.09.2023 issued by this Hon'ble Court. He further submits that in para No. 5 of State's reply, it is contended that number of phone calls were exchanged between the accused persons which has come in call detail records. He further argued that it is held in catena of judgments that mere call detail records sans transcript of conversaon between co- accused is not corroborave without substanve material against accused. Lastly, with regard to the reply filed by complainant, the peoner has no concern with M/s Navpreet Enterprise. 5. The peoner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent condions and contends that further pre-trial incarceraon would cause an irreversible injusce to the peoner and their family. 6. The State as well as counsel for the complainant opposes bail and refers to the status report. He has drawn aGenon of this Court to paras 4 to 6 of the status report, which reads as follows: “4. That preliminary enquiry on the above noted applica7on of the complainant was conducted by the ACP-PBI, Economics and Cyber Offences, Ludhiana during which the above noted allega7ons of the complainant were established and it was revealed that the present pe77oner and Munish Kumar were the agents of one M/s Luthra and Company-Phagwara and they in connivance with said Amarjit Singh Bha" prepared fake invoices of the said M/s. Luthra and Company amoun7ng to Rs.1.00 Crore and therea6er got refunded an amount of Rs.18,00,020/- under the pretext of GST refund from the complainant's firm in the name of Luthra and Company and therea6er the said amount was got deposited 3 JYOTI 2025.01.30 14:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-37576-2024 from the bank in the bank account of some other firm namely Krishna Enterprises-Mandi Gobindgarh and within two hours the same was withdrawn. However, the bank was also at fault and on pressuring the bank i.e. Yes Bank, the said money was deposited by Yes Bank in the complainant's bank account. The said fake invoices of said M/s. Luthra and Company prepared by the pe77oner and Munish Kumar in the name of complainant's firm, were also taken into possession. It was further revealed that the above said Amarjit Singh Bha" in connivance with his other accomplices got deposited a total amount of Rs.1,19,35,880/- as GST refund from the complainant on the basis of fake invoices and therea6er withdrawn the same. Fake invoices were raised in the names of M/s. Ni7n Trading Co., Luthra and company, Navpreet Enterprises, Prabhdayal Enterprises, Ram Enterprises and Shiv Traders. However, GST amounts were got deposited in the bank accounts of M/s. P.K. Enterprises, Navpreet Enterprises, V.K. Trading Co., Aadi Shak7 Jewellers and Satkar Enterprises. Some of the firms had deposited a total amount of Rs.80.00 Lac in the bank account of the complainant when the complainant had moved the complaint to the police but the remaining amount of Rs.39,35,880/- has not been deposited with the complainant's firm. ROLE OF THE PETITIONER: The present pe77oner and Munish Kumar were the Agents of above noted firm M/s. Luthra and Company, Phagwara and they in connivance with said Amarjit Singh Bha"-Accountant of the complainant, had prepared fake invoices of Rs.1.00 Crore of their said firm M/s. Luthra and Company- Phagwara and therea6er received payment of Rs.18,00,020/- as GST refund from the complainant on the basis of fake invoices and therea6er got deposited the said GST amount of Rs.18,00,020/- in bank account of one other firm namely Krishna Enterprises, Mandi Gobindgarh and a6er two hours withdrawn the said money. The pe77oner was also conniving with other account holders in whose accounts the GST amount was deposited on the basis of fake invoices. The above noted enquiry report of the ACP was further examined and verified by the ADCP-HQ, Ludhiana and finally the same was approved as well by the Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana. Accordingly FIR No.77 dated 02.06.2023, u/s 408, 420, 120-B IPC P.S. Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana (Annexure P-1) was registered against the pe77oner and his co-accused Amarjit Singh Bha", Munish Kumar, Janak Singh, Pardeep Kumar (owner 4 JYOTI 2025.01.30 14:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-37576-2024 of fake firm P.K. Enterprises), Navpreet Singh (owner of firm Navpreet Enterprises), Vikram Singh (owner of firm V.K. Trading Company), Gursewak Singh (owner of firm Adi Shak7 Jewellers) and Joginder Singh alias Akash (owner of firm Satkar Enterprises. 5. That during the inves7ga7on, the above noted fake invoices of M/s. Luthra and Company-Phagwara, prepared by the pe77oner, were taken into possession by the Inves7ga7ng Officer. Statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C of the complainant was recorded on 03.06.2024 in which the complainant has levelled specific allega7ons against the pe77oner that the pe77oner in connivance with his Accountant Amarjit Singh Bha" has prepared fake invoices and got deposited amount in fake bank accounts. As fake documents were prepared by the pe77oner and his co-accused, therefore offences u/s 467, 468, 471 IPC have also been added in this case. 6. That thus the pe77oner, who was the Agent of firm M/s Luthra and Company, Phagwara, prepared its fake invoice of Rs.1.00 crore in connivance with his co-accused and thereby got deposited GST payment of Rs.18,00,020/- from the complainant and therea6er fraudulently got it deposited in the bank account of one Krishna Enterprises -Mandi Gobindgarh and withdrawn the same within two hours. Therefore, the pe77oner is not en7tled for the concession of an7cipatory bail which is an extra ordinary relief and the same is granted only in excep7onal cases.” 7. State counsel submits that there is evidence of call record and the peoner created 6-7 fake forms and custodial interrogaon is required to unearth the scam and to find out the modus-operandi and to recover the ill-goGen money. 8. Analyzing the pleadings as well as the status report filed by the State clearly prima facie indicts the peoner in connivance with Munish Pal @ Munish Kumar and other co-accused have prepared the fake invoices of Rs.1 crore and then thereby fraudulently transferring money in their own the accounts which was not entled to them. It is not a case of simple mis-appropriaon but of cheang and thugee. Thus, given the nature of allegaons, the peoner is not entled to bail. The parameters for ancipatory bail are enrely different from the regular bail. 9. A perusal of the bail peon and the documents aGached primafacie points towards the peoner’s involvement and does not make out a case for ancipatory bail. The impact of crime would also not jusfy ancipatory bail. Any further discussions will likely prejudice the peoner; this court refrains from doing so. 5 JYOTI 2025.01.30 14:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-37576-2024 10. Any observaon made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 11. Pe11on dismissed. Interim orders, if any, are recalled with immediate effect. All pending applicaons, if any, are disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 30.01.2025 Jyo1-II Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No. 6 JYOTI 2025.01.30 14:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.