CRM-M-51202-2024 and other connected cases -1 215 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1) CRM-M-51202-2024 Reserved on: 18.03.2025 Prononced on:28.03.2025 RAJINDER SINGH @ HARJINDER SINGH ...PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB ...RESPONDENT 2) CRM-M-54117-2024 KULWANT SINGH ...PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB ...RESPONDENT 3) CRM-M-53055-2024 SUKHWINDER KAUR SARKARIA ...PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB ...RESPONDENT 4) CRM-M-61781-2024 CHARANJIT SINGH SARKARIA ...PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Argued by: Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate for the peoner in CRM-M-51202-2024. Mr. Satbir Singh Gill, Advocate for the peoner(s) in CRM-M-61781, 54117 and 53055-2024. Mr. Akshay Kumar, Asst. AG, Punjab Ms. Isha Goel, Advocate for the complainant. **** ANOOP CHITKARA, J. By this Common judgment, all the caponed above peons are taken up for disposal, for brevity facts are taken from CRM-M-51202-2024 as all the peons relate to the same FIR. Renu Bala 2025.04.08 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-51202-2024 and other connected cases -2 FIR No. Dated Police Staon Secons 176 05.09.2024 Kamboz, Tehsil Batala, District Amritsar (Rural) 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120- B of IPC, 1860 1. The peoner(s) 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 all the bail peons, three peoners have clean antecedents except one peoner, namely, Charanjit Singh Sarkaria has the following criminal history:- Sr. No. FIR No. Date/Year Offenses Police Staon 1. 163 03.07.2020 302/201/34 of IPC, 1860 Kamboj, District Amritsar 2. 52 04.05.2022 336 of IPC and Secons 25/27 of Arms Act Kamboj, District Amritsar 3. The facts and allegaons are being taken from the translaon of FIR, which reads as follows: "To Hon'ble SSP Sahib, Amritsar Rural, Subject: Applicaon against (1) Ranjit Singh son of Gurmeet Singh resident of Village Jethuwal, Amritsar, (2) Gurmeet Singh son of Harbhajan Singh resident of Village Jethuwal Amritsar, (3) Wife of Ranjit Singh (unnamed) in respect of playing fraud and cheang obtaining Rs.9 Crores 9 Lakhs and 45 Lakhs and Rs.5 Crore total amount Rs.14 Crore and 45 Lakhs on the pretext of purchasing land. Mr. Ramesh Arora Managing Director Quality Pharmaceucal Ltd., Majitha Road, Amritsar through Quality Pharmaceucal Ltd. 6 Miles stone, Near Village Nang Kalan, Majitha Road Amritsar moved the following applicaon with allegaons that Quality Pharmaceucal Limited deals in manufacturing of medicines. In the year 2021, The company have planned buy to some land in order to run the business, then both accused told the company that they have a lot of reputaon/recognion in the Amritsar District and have good influence in an around Villages Jethuwal and Malluwal and they assured that they will purchase land collecvely in the same area in the name of Quality Pharmaceucal Ltd. by execung sale deeds in favour of the company. In this regard an agreement/MOU with Ranjit Singh was executed by the company through one of its authorized person namely Neel Mani Khemka son of Sarwan Kumar resident of 361-A, Mall Road, Amritsar and this agreement/MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) was executed between Ranjit Singh and Neel Mani Khemka on behalf of Quality Pharmaceucal Ltd. on 28.02.2021. 2. That as per the agreement/MOU the accused agreed to sell land measuring 50 Acres together No.25/26/27/39/40/42/57 from for Khasra sale consideraon of Rs.40 Lakhs per Acre and received Rs.9 Lakhs in cash and Rs.21 Lakhs in the shape of Cheque No.000861 on the same day 28.02.2021 and got the amount transferred in his account as such he received total Rs.9 Crores 9 Lakhs through bank transfer on various dates in his personal bank account. Similarly, accused no.2 with connivance of accused no.1 executed an agreement with company on 10.11.2021 for Renu Bala 2025.04.08 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-51202-2024 and other connected cases -3 selling a land totaling 108 Kanal 7 Marla and said Gurmeet Singh got transferred Rs.45 Lakhs in his account. In this regard, accused no.1 issued two post-dated Cheques bearing No.007520 dated 24.09.2022 for amount totaling Rs.8 Crore 85 Lakhs 58 Thousand 5 Hundred of Axis bank and second Cheque No.007516 dated 26.09.2022 totalling amounng Rs.5 Crore of Axis Bank in favour of complainant company. 4. That both the accused have not purchased any land in the favor of the company and on the contrary have escaped with all the money of the company. The company presented the Cheques for encashment in their bank accounts but both of Cheques were dishonored due to insufficient funds. Regarding this the company has already filed a complaint in the court against the accused and Ranjit Singh did not appear in the court as such the Hon'ble Court Smt. Neelam JMIC declared accused Ranjit Singh as proclaimed offender vide order dated 12.06.2024. 5. That whenever the company transferred any amount in the account of accused, the said accused got the money transferred to his wife's account and to Nakash Film Producon Company, which reveal that the above accused Ranjit Singh had invested a huge amount in the said Nakash Film Producon Company and became the producer of Punjabi Movie Cheta Singh. 6. The above accused persons have connived with each other in usurping the company's money by playing and are now hiding themselves. Therefore, it is requested that in view of above circumstances, legal acon be taken against them by registering an FIR against the three accused for commiIng fraud. Yours thankfully." 4. Counsel for the peoner(s) submits that there is no allegaons of cheang against the peoner(s). All the peoner(s) are in relaon with the main accused-Ranjit Singh and they were also present for execuon of agreement. 'The peoner(s)' counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent condion and contends that further pre-trial incarceraon would cause an irreversible injusce to the peoners and their families. 5. The State’s counsel opposes bail and states that there is sufficient evidence poinng towards the peoner(s)' involvement and conspiracy and the peoner(s) are not entled to bail as custodial interrogaon is required. Counsel for the complainant also opposes the bail 6. It would be appropriate to refer to the following porons of the reply, which read as follows: "That the role of the peoner as per the FIR is that he was aware of the complete fraud being commiLed by his family members with the company as he was present at the me of the execuon of the MoU as well as the Agreement with the Company. The cash was given by the Company to Ranjit Singh & family in his presence and he even went to the extent of showing the land to the persons of the Company to make them believe in the enre fraud. Hence it is clear from the bare reading of the FIR that the Peoner has been acvely involved in the fraud commiLed with the Company and has played a vital role in the same." Renu Bala 2025.04.08 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-51202-2024 and other connected cases -4 REASONING: 7. An analysis of the arguments, which led to the outcome that on the face of the FIR, peoner(s) were not named as persons who had taken any money. Main accused is Ranjit Singh, who is brother-in-law of peoner-Rajinder Singh @ Harjinder Singh, nephew of peoner Kulwant Singh, son of peoner Sukhwinder Kaur, brother of peoner Charanjit Singh. 8. Thus, the evidence against the peoner(s) are on much lower foongs than against the main accused. As such, consideraon for granng bail to the peoner(s) would be enrely different than while considering the bail applicaon of the main accused. 9. Pre-trial incarceraon should not be a replica of post-convicon sentencing. The evidence might be prima facie sufficient to launch prosecuon or to frame charges, but this Court is not considering the evidence at that stage, but is analyzing it for the sake of ancipatory bail. An analysis of the above does not jusfy custodial interrogaon or pre-trial incarceraon. 10. Given the above, the penal provisions invoked coupled with the prima facie analysis of the nature of allegaons and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no jusfiability for custodial interrogaon or the pre-trial incarceraon at this stage, subject to the compliance of terms and condions menoned in this order. Without commenng on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons menoned above, the peoner makes a case for bail. This order shall come into force from the me it is uploaded on this Court's official webpage. 11. The invesgaon indicates that the peoner(s) are not the main accused, so the peoner(s) bail shall not be treated as a precedent for granng bail to the other co-accused with a higher role. 12. Given above, provided the peoner(s) are not required in any other case, the peoner(s) shall be released on ancipatory bail in the FIR caponed above subject to furnishing bonds to the sasfacon of the Arresng Officer, and if the maKer is before a Court, then the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accepng the surety, the concerned Officer/Court must be sasfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused. 13. While furnishing a personal bond, the peoner(s) shall menon the following personal idenficaon details: 1. AADHAR number 2. Passport number (If available) and when the aKesng officer/court considers it appropriate or considers the accused a flight risk. 3. Mobile number (If available) Renu Bala 2025.04.08 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-51202-2024 and other connected cases -5 4. E-Mail id (If available) 14. This order is subject to the peoner’s complying with the following terms. 15. The peoner(s) are directed to join the invesgaon within seven days of uploading this order on the official webpage of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and as and when called by the Invesgator. The peoner(s) shall be in deemed custody for Secon 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872/ Secon 23 of BSA, 2023. The peoner(s) shall join the invesgaon as and when called by the Invesgang Officer or any Superior Officer and shall cooperate with the invesgaon at all further stages as required. In the event of failure to do so, the prosecuon will be open to seeking cancellaon of the bail. During the invesgaon, the peoner(s) shall not be subjected to third-degree, indecent language, inhuman treatment, etc. 16. In case the Invesgator/Officer-In-Charge of the concerned Police Staon arraigns another secon of any penal offense in this FIR, and if the new secon prescribes a maximum sentence that is not greater than the secons menoned above, then this bail order shall be deemed to have also been passed for the newly added secon(s). However, suppose the newly inserted secons prescribe a sentence exceeding the maximum sentence prescribed in the secons menoned above; then, in that case, the Invesgator/Officer-In- Charge shall give the peoner(s) noce of a minimum of seven days, providing an opportunity to avail the remedies available in law. 17. This bail is condional, and the foundaonal condion is that if the peoner(s) indulge in any non-bailable offense, the State may file an applicaon for cancellaon of this bail before the Sessions Court, which shall be at liberty to cancel this bail. 18. Any observaon made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 19. A cerfied copy of this order would not be needed for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Peoner(s) can download this order along with case status from the official web page of this Court and aKest it to be a true copy. If the aKesng officer wants to verify its authencity, such an officer can also verify its authencity and may download and use the downloaded copy for aKesng bonds. 20. Peons are allowed in terms menoned above. All pending applicaons, if any, stand disposed of 28.03.2025 ( ANOOP CHITKARA) renubala JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No Renu Bala 2025.04.08 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document