JUDGMENT : FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 30 15.11.2023 Vigilance Bureau Range Jalandhar 7, 7A & 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 1. The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above had come up before this Court under Section 438 CrPC seeking anticipatory bail by filing the present petition. 2. Vide order dated 15.01.2024, the petitioner was granted interim protection, which is continuing till date. 3. Facts of the case are being taken from reply dated 22.01.2024, which reads as follows: - “The brief facts of the case are that complainant Monish Salhotra is running two companies namely EBTL company established in 2013 and another company Ligero System Pvt. Ltd established in year 2018. Whereas, his company EBTL Pvt. Ltd deals in manufacturing smart electricity switches and Ligero system deals in marketing the smart switches. On 04.02.2020, one G& M company, owned by co-accused Gagandeep Singh, entered into an agreement with the complainant company to prepare samples of switches for 25,000 US dollars. A sum of 12,500 US dollars was transferred by way of NEFT in advance in the account of Ligero system Pvt. Ltd. with Punjab National Bank. Thereafter, due to the COVID Pandemic, everything came to standstill. So, G&Mcompany unilaterally canceled the agreement by sending email in writing but by that time, the complainant had already completed the work for 19,000 dollars. However, G&M company started demanding its money back, paid in advance to the complainant company. But thereafter, there took place no talk between the two companies. Then, co- accused Gagandeep Singh one of the owner of G&M company-adopted method to get his money back by blackmailing the complainant through Co-accused Ravinder Kumar, who was posted as Superintendent Enforcement Directorate, Jalandhar. It has come out during the enquiry as well as investigation of the case, that co-accused Rajbir Singh, who was just residing next door to accused Gagandeep Singh told the complainant that Ravinder Kumar posted in Enforcement Department has made a phone call to him to tell complainant that Gagandeep Singh had filed one complaint against his company with ED office. Initially, complainant did not take it seriously and asked Rajbir Singh that he would see, if any call is received by him personally in this regard. Initially, complainant did not take it seriously and asked Rajbir Singh that he would see, if any call is received by him personally in this regard. Then, on 26.02.2022, complainant received a call from mobile number 80535-00145, subscribed in the name of accused Ravinder Kumar, who was posted as Superintendent in the enforcement Department at Jalandhar on the mobile phone of his wife Smt. KomalSalhotra, bearing subscription number 99885-87099 and another call made through whatsapp. In that call, the Ravinder Kumar made a reference of his talk with accused Rajbir Singh. On the asking of the complainant, whether he was speaking to an Enforcement Directorate official, Ravinder Kumar replied in affirmative and asked complainant to meet him. The complainant further questioned Ravinder Kumar, whether he should meet him in the office of the ED, upon which Ravinder Kumar told that he would inform in the evening. Then complainant again talked toco-accused Rajbir on WhatsApp and said Rajbir told that he will arrange the meeting of the complainant with Ravinder Kumar of ED department. On 01.03.2022, Rajbir arranged a meeting of complainant with Enforcement Directorate official Ravinder Kumar outside the office of accused Ravinder Kumar, near Heat Seven Restaurant, Jalandhar. Ravinder Kumar told the complainant that he had received one complaint in ED office made by Gagandeep Singh and in case, a case is registered under the FEMA act, then the carrier of complainant's company would come to an end asked him to approach his CA in this regard. Then, petitioner Parambir Singh, CA suggested complainant to engage services of some CA, who deals in ED cases. Though, there was no complaint pending with the ED against the complainant, still by blackmailing the complainant, all the accused got entered a settlement with Gagandeep Singh and also compelled the complainant to pay 4 Lacs to be paid to the officials of ED office. The petitioner, as well as the other co-accused by blackmailing the complainant got entered a settlement with Gagandeep Singh and also compelled the complainant to pay rupees 4 Lacs to be paid to the officials of ED office and in this way, aided and abetted the main accused in forcing complainant to enter into agreement and part with hefty amount under the guise of compromise got entered by way of extortion. That furthermore, it is pertinent to mention before this Hon'ble Court that the provisions of the PC Act have been invoked in the present FIR as one of the co-accused namely Ravinder Kumar is a Public Servant who has played a pivotal role in connivance with the Petitioner namely Paramvir Singh, Gagandeep Singh, Deepinder Singh and Arshdeep Singh in extorting money from the Complainant while making him believe that there is a case pending before the Enforcement Directorate against him and at the same time conspiring against the Complainant and cheating him to the tune of more than Rs. 11,00,000/-. Thus the provisions Under Sections 7, 7-A, 12 of the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 have been rightly invoked in the present FIR.” 4. In addition to the reply and the arguments, even the complainant has handed over synopsis which reads as follows:- “The Complainant namely Monish Salhotra went for a business deal in 2020 to the US where he met Gagandeep Singh (co-accused) and Marek, the owners of G&M Automation in the US. Monish Salhotra signed an MoU and got a payment of 12,500 USD for the commencement of the project for the US market and got an order for the customization of touch panels for the US market. The Complainant's company was supposed to get another 12,500 USD from G&M automation after the successful delivery and acceptance of samples. However, the Complainant got an email from G&M automation that they (Gagan and Marek) are no more interested in the R&D of products and they would rather like to buy pre- manufactured from China. In the same email they demanded for a 100% refund. Monish responded back to the email stating that there have been expenses on the project for the customization of switches for the US market during last 6 months and thus EBTL (Complainant's Company) cannot refund the 100% amount. When EBTL calculated their expenses, the expenses came out to be more than 12,500 USD, as EBTL was almost at the verge of completion of the project. The Complainant shared the expenses with G&M automation which were around 19,000 USD. This discussion got closed here at the end of 2020. 2. Thereafter, in 2022 Feb, co-accused Rajbir Singh (Complainant's co-founder) called him up and mentioned that Gagandeep Singh has filed a complaint in ED (Enforcement Directorate). The Complainant shared the expenses with G&M automation which were around 19,000 USD. This discussion got closed here at the end of 2020. 2. Thereafter, in 2022 Feb, co-accused Rajbir Singh (Complainant's co-founder) called him up and mentioned that Gagandeep Singh has filed a complaint in ED (Enforcement Directorate). Rajbir Singh also made the Complainant meet an ED Officer Ravinder Kumar (Co-accused) on 1st March 2022. Ravinder Kumar told the Complainant and Rajbir Singh to talk to some CA to get this matter sorted. At that time CA of EBTL was CA Paramvir Singh (Petitioner), who happens to be Rajbir Singh's cousin. The Complainant and Rajbir Singh spoke to the Petitioner and the Petitioner mentioned that they need to get in touch with someone who is an expert in managing cases of ED. The Petitioner introduced CA Arshdeep Singh (Co-accused) over call and then CA Paramvir Singh and Rajbir Singh took the Complainant to meet CA Arshdeep Singh in Amritsar. CA Arshdeep Singh assured that he knows ED Officer Ravinder Kumar very well and will be able to handle this case. Arshdeep Singh then called and met the Complainant and Rajbir Singh many times and demanded 4L for ED, and Rajbir Singh made the Complainant make a payment of 6.5L to Deepinder Singh (Gagandeep's brother and co-accused), 1L for Arshdeep Singh and 30k was demanded by CA Paramvir Singh. 3. Thereafter, In the month of in July 2022, CA Arshdeep Singh started demanding more money in the name of ED and Gagandeep Singh and the Complainant got suspicious and filed a Police complaint in July 2022. Since then the Complainant's complaint has been closed 6 times by the Jalandhar Police and finally, in the month of August 2023, the Complainant filed a complaint to the Anti-Corruption helpline of the Chief Minister which landed up with the Vigilance Department Jalandhar. It was found out later by Vigilance department there was no such complaint in ED. (1) Deepinder Singh and (2) Gagandeep Singh acted as complainant, (3) Ravinder Kumar made up a story of a fake ED case, (4) CA Paramvir Singh (Petitioner) and (5) CA Arshdeep Singh acted as they are solving a fake case and (6) Rajbir Singh made sure that the Complainant believed that there is a case in ED in reality. (1) Deepinder Singh and (2) Gagandeep Singh acted as complainant, (3) Ravinder Kumar made up a story of a fake ED case, (4) CA Paramvir Singh (Petitioner) and (5) CA Arshdeep Singh acted as they are solving a fake case and (6) Rajbir Singh made sure that the Complainant believed that there is a case in ED in reality. This fraud and blackmailing was done by the above mentioned 6 people to extort money and ruin the business of the Complainant. Thus, the registration of the present FIR. GROUNDS: 1. The Petitioner played a vital role in making the Complainant meet with the other co-accused whereby Rs. 11.50 lakhs were extorted by all the co-accused from the Complainant. 2. The co-accused namely Deepinder (in connivance with the Petitioner) got a contract dated 27.03.2022 signed by the Complainant whereby they have admitted in writing that the co-accused namely Gagandeep Singh has filed a case before the ED against the Complainant and the same shall be withdrawn if the Complainant agrees to pay the co-accused Gagndeep Singh. (A copy of the same has been handed over to the police. 3. The Petitioner has also apologized to the Complainant and has admitted over a call recording that no case had been filed against the Complainant before the ED and the recording of the call has also been handed over to the police. 4. It is pertinent to mention before this Hon'ble Court that the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act have been invoked in the present case as one of the co-accused namely Ravinder Kumar is working as a Superintendent Chief Commissioner, Chennai of GST and Central Excise and was instrumental in extorting money from the Complainant by conniving with the other co-accused.” 5. The petitioner, Paramvir Singh, had introduced Chartered Accountant Arshdeep Singh, accompanied Rajbir Singh, and participated in the meeting with CA Arshdeep Singh, which had taken place in Amritsar. In the said meeting, Chartered Accountant Arshdeep Singh assured the complainant that he has good connections with an Enforcement Directorate officer, Ravinder Kumar, and he would be able to handle this case through his intervention. After that, Arshdeep Singh called the complainant and demanded Rs.4 lacs from the Enforcement Directorate. Rajbir Singh had also called the complainant to pay Rs.6,50,000/- to Deepinder Singh (brother of Gagandeep Singh) and Rs. After that, Arshdeep Singh called the complainant and demanded Rs.4 lacs from the Enforcement Directorate. Rajbir Singh had also called the complainant to pay Rs.6,50,000/- to Deepinder Singh (brother of Gagandeep Singh) and Rs. One lac for Arshdeep Singh, and Rs.30,000/- is for the petitioner, Paramvir Singh. The petitioner’s stand is that Rs.30,000/- was paid as a professional fee; however, counsel for the complainant disputes the same and submits that it has been wrongly shown, and it was the amount that was a share for introducing Arshdeep Singh. Petitioner’s further submission is that they are volunteering to return the amount of Rs.30,000/- and contends that custodial interrogation and pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family. 6. State counsel opposes the above-mentioned submission and states that they are well empowered and have the resources to seize the petitioner's account and very well recover the money, but they need custodial interrogation to find out about the entire racket. Counsel for the State, as well as the complainant, submits that in case this Court is inclined to give bail, it should be subject to the condition that other accused shall not be entitled to the same benefit for the reason that the roles of other accused are much more severe than the petitioner. 7. An analysis of the pleadings, written synopsis, and arguments addressed at the bar would lead to the following outcome. The investigation points out that petitioner Paramvir Singh had suggested that the complainant engage the services of a Chartered Accountant who deals with the matters of the Enforcement Directorate. Although there was no complaint pending before the Enforcement Directorate and still the petitioner had introduced the complainant to Chartered Accountant Arshdeep Singh and to one alleged thug, Ravinder Kumar, who, by misrepresentation, extorted the complainant to pay Rs. Four lacs, which was to be further paid to Enforcement Directorate officers. This Court would not comment anything further because it would prejudice the rights of the main accused, CA Arshdeep Singh, and the primary accused, Ravinder Kumar, but there is no allegation that the petitioner was aware of their nefarious designs. 8. Four lacs, which was to be further paid to Enforcement Directorate officers. This Court would not comment anything further because it would prejudice the rights of the main accused, CA Arshdeep Singh, and the primary accused, Ravinder Kumar, but there is no allegation that the petitioner was aware of their nefarious designs. 8. The only allegation against the petitioner is that he in connivance with co-accused namely Arshdeep Singh and Ravinder Kumar, who were allegedly the thugs, he introduced the complainant to CA Arshdeep Singh and in return, he got a cut of Rs.30,000/- which he had showed as a professional fee. It remains undisputed that the petitioner had received Rs.30,000/-. This Court has refrained from commenting further because all accused are not parties before this Court in the present case, and any observation would cause severe prejudice against them. 9. Unfortunately, some professions in our country have become highly unethical, and the practitioners accept cuts for referring the work instead of referring the matters on a reciprocal basis or ethical or professional grounds. Although with a heavy heart, this Court cannot ignore the existence of such unethical practices, which are widely prevalent in many professions, including some of the unethical Chartered Accountants. 10. Given the above, there would be no justification for the petitioner for pre-trial incarceration and custodial interrogation subject to the condition that the petitioner shall fully cooperate for recovery of Rs.30,000/-. Petitioner is directed to cooperate in the investigation for recovery of Rs.30,000/- within 15 days. On failure to do so, the concerned Superintendent of Police shall apply for cancellation of bail, and bail would be canceled on this ground alone. It is further clarified that the above observations are only to decide the present bail petition and for no other purpose. This order shall not be cited as parity by other accused whose cases are on a higher footing. 11. Petition is allowed with the aforesaid observation and interim order dated 15.01.2024 is made absolute. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.