Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1794 (PNJ)

Surjit Singh v. Central Bureau of Investigation

2014-12-23

KULDIP SINGH

body2014
JUDGMENT Mr. Kuldip Singh, J. (Oral) - Petitioner seeks bail under Section 439 read with Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. in FIR No. RCCHG2011A0023 dated 30.11.2011, registered under Sections 420/465/467/468/471/477-A/120-B/109 IPC at Police Station CBI/ACB/Chandigarh. 2. Briefly stated, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner for forgery and misappropriation of bank money, amounting to Rs. 2,85,19,099/-. In this regard, FIR No. 80 dated 5.5.2009 was registered under Sections 420/465/467/468/471/477- A/120-B/109 IPC at Police Station City Kotkapura, District Faridkot, at the instance of Shri J.S. Kochher, Branch Manager, Punjab and Sind Bank, Kotkapura Branch, District Faridkot (in short ‘the Bank’). Thereafter on 2.6.2009, the petitioner surrendered before the trial Court in case pertaining to FIR No. 80 dated 5.5.2009 and he was remanded to police custody for five days and thereafter sent to judicial custody. Later on 25.9.2009, the petitioner was enlarged on regular bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. after remaining in custody for 3 months and 23 days. A report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented in Court. The charges were framed against the accused/petitioner from 22.10.2001 to 6.4.2009. During the pendency of the trial, two different FIR Nos. 32 and 33 dated 8.2.2011 were got registered against the accused/petitioner by the said Bank on the allegations that Jagdev Singh son of Inder Singh was allowed to avail cash credit limit of Rs. 2 lacs on 6.7.2005 against the mortgage of land measuring 27 kanals 14 marlas, situated at village Behbal Khurd. Later on, Jagdev Singh disclosed to the said Bank that he owes nothing to the said Bank and that the land has been redeemed by the said Patwari. The anticipatory bail in the said case was declined by the Court. The petitioner has challenged the legality of the subsequent FIRs i.e. FIR Nos. 32 and 33 dated 8.2.2011 registered under Sections 420/465/467/468/471/477-A/120-B/409 IPC at Police Station City Kotkapura, District Faridkot, in this Court by filing CRM No. 8791-M of 2011, but the same was dismissed, vide order dated 23.8.2012 (Annexure-P-6). In the meantime, the petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender as he became absent before the trial Court in case pertaining to FIR No. 80 dated 5.5.2009 (Annexure-P-1). 3. In the meantime, the petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender as he became absent before the trial Court in case pertaining to FIR No. 80 dated 5.5.2009 (Annexure-P-1). 3. It is further stated that, the said Bank filed CRM No. M- 34998 of 2009, seeking direction to transfer the investigation pertaining to FIR No. 80 dated 5.5.2009, registered under Sections 420/465/467/468/471/120-B/109 IPC at Police Station City Kotkapura, District Faridkot, to the CBI. This Court, vide order dated 21.9.2011 (Annexure-P-7), transferred the investigation to the CBI, and the CBI was directed to complete the investigation within six months from the date of taking over the investigation. It is stated that now the petitioner was arrested on 12.2.2014 and he is entitled to bail under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. as well as under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 4. The prayer has been opposed by the learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for respondent-CBI. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned senior standing counsel for respondent-CBI and have also carefully gone through the file. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that previously, the petitioner was released on bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. When the investigation was transferred to the CBI, it (CBI), on the basis of same facts, registered a separate FIR No. RCCHG2011A0023 dated 30.11.2011, registered under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 477-A, 120-B, 109 IPC at Police Station CBI/ACB/Chandigarh. Therefore, the petitioner could not be rearrested. 7. On the other hand, the learned senior standing counsel for respondent-CBI has stated that during the pendency of the trial, the petitioner had become a proclaimed offender. When the investigation was handed over to the CBI and a case was registered by it, the petitioner was not available. He was arrested by the Punjab Police on 12.2.2014 and was taken into custody. 8. I agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the transfer of the investigation in this case was in the nature of ordering further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. When the petitioner availed the bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. and he absented himself before the trial Court and became a proclaimed offender, the bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. came to an end. Therefore, the petitioner had to avail the remedy for grant of regular bail after his re-arrest. 9. Therefore, the petitioner had to avail the remedy for grant of regular bail after his re-arrest. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner cannot be detained for indefinite period. Since the offence is triable by the Magistrate, therefore, the petitioner should be released on bail. 10. For this purpose, a large number of authorities, mentioned below, have been produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner :- 1. Mithabhai Pashabhai Patel and others Versus State of Gujarat, [2010(1) Law Herald (SC) 521] : 2010 (1) RCR (Criminal) 171 – Hon’ble Supreme Court ; 2. Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Jain Versus State of Maharashtra and another 2013 (3) SCC 77 ; 3. Sunil Kumar Sharma Versus State – Delhi High Court; 4. Uday Mohanlal Acharya Versus State of Maharashtra, 2001(2) (Criminal) CLJ 11 ; 5. Sayed Mohd. Ahmed Kazmi Versus State, GNCTD and others, [2012(6) Law Herald (SC) 5094] : 2013 AIR SC (Cri) 10 ; 6. Bhupinder Singh and others Versus Jarnail Singh and another, 2006 AIR (SC) 2622 ; 7. Om Parkash Gabbar Versus State of Punjab, 1997 (1) RCR (Criminal) 193 ; 8. Som Nath and another Versus State of Punjab, 2011 (3) RCR (Criminal) 515 ; 9. Gurvinder Singh @ Mannu Versus State of Punjab, [2013(3) Law Herald (P&H) 2617] : 2013 (4) RCR (Criminal) 892 ; 10. Gurpreet Singh Versus State of Punjab, [2014(1) Law Herald (P&H) 118] : 2014 (2) ALCLR 495 ; 11. Raj Singh @ Babbu Versus State of Punjab, [2013(4) Law Herald (P&H) 2835] : 2013 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1054 ; 12. Sanjay Kumar Kedia @ Sanjay Kedia Versus Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau and another, [2010(2) Law Herald (SC) 1076] : 2010 (1) RCR (Criminal) 942 ; 13. Rajwant Kaur and another Versus State of Punjab, CRM No. M-7237 of 2013, decided on 10.3.2014 ; 14. Sanjay Chandra and others Versus Central Bureau of Investigation, [2012(1) Law Herald (SC) 113] : AIR 2012 Supreme Court 830 ; 15. Union of India through CBI Versus Nirala Yadav @ Raja Ram @ Deepak Yadav, [2014(4) Law Herald (SC) 2942] : AIR 2014 Supreme Court 3036. 11. I have gone through all the aforesaid authorities. 12. Sanjay Chandra and others Versus Central Bureau of Investigation, [2012(1) Law Herald (SC) 113] : AIR 2012 Supreme Court 830 ; 15. Union of India through CBI Versus Nirala Yadav @ Raja Ram @ Deepak Yadav, [2014(4) Law Herald (SC) 2942] : AIR 2014 Supreme Court 3036. 11. I have gone through all the aforesaid authorities. 12. It is not the denying fact that in an ordinary case, petitioner should be entitled to bail as the offence is triable by the Magistrate and as the petitioner is in custody for the last about 10 months. However, the facts of the present case are different. In the present case, the petitioner had become a proclaimed offender and was re-arrested, showing that he had earlier misused the concession of bail. Further, it comes out that the petitioner filed his incomplete and later on wrong address to mislead the Court about his actual place of residence. The petitioner had initially filed the address of his residence as Friends Colony Green Avenue, Faridkot. However, when the CBI was asked to verify, it came out that the said house bears No. 942, Street No. 4/14. In this way, his house number and street number was not mentioned in the address. However, later on, the petitioner filed an application and gave a new address showing that at present he is residing at ‘Backside Matharu Industry, Faridkot’. When the address of the petitioner was got verified from the said address, it came out that at the said address, his daughter was staying. She earlier disclosed to the CBI official that her brother is doing PH.D. in Chennai and her mother has also gone to Chennai. However, it was later on found that they had infact gone to Australia. When the verification was made from the residents of the locality, it was found that the present petitioner Surjit Singh never resided at the said address. Therefore, it comes out that the present petitioner had provided the wrong address to this Court. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that even if the petitioner has no permanent place of residence, he cannot be denied the benefit of bail. It has been argued that the life and liberty of the petitioner is involved and he cannot be detained for indefinite period. 14. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that even if the petitioner has no permanent place of residence, he cannot be denied the benefit of bail. It has been argued that the life and liberty of the petitioner is involved and he cannot be detained for indefinite period. 14. I am of the view that the present bail petition is liable to be dismissed on the short ground that the petitioner firstly furnished the incomplete address and then wrong address to this Court, showing that he is residing at a particular address, whereas it is found that he never resided there. Therefore, this Court has a doubt that if the petitioner is released on bail, he will flee the country. 15. It being so, the present bail petition, filed by the petitioner is dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————