The High Court of Punjab and Haryana while making a bail order for the accused booked for cheating and fraud held that in cheating cases where bail is sought by the accused, the Court cannot impose a condition to deposit the allegedly misappropriated amount before granting bail and no pre-condition for deposit of alleged cheated amount can be imposed nor can a bail petition be converted into recovery proceedings.
Brief Facts:
The accused, working as a director in SERA Cue Labs Pvt. Ltd. was alleged to have committed fraud and forged documents in the company where the complainant was also a director, was accused under Sections 420 (cheating), 465, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC. He filed the present petition under Section 439 CrPC seeking bail.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that an examination of the allegations levelled in the FIR showed that it was a result of a business dispute and has deliberately been given a criminal colour and the complainant owes money to the accused and a civil suit for recovery has been instituted by the petitioner, which is pending inter se the parties. Further, it was submitted that one of the conditions imposed in the order was to surrender the passport of the petitioner, which has been duly complied with, still in the last more than 4 years, The petitioner, who is a respected member of the society has never misused the concession.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state contended that the petitioner has been specifically named in the FIR and there are allegations of cheating as well as forgery of documents against him. He has categoric instructions to state that recovery of defrauded money is to be effected from the petitioner.
Observations of the court:
The court noted that the offences allegedly committed by the petitioner were triable by a Magistrate and that the investigation against him was complete. It was noted that the petitioner was on interim bail for more than four years and there was no allegation that he had misused his liberties. The court observed that the dispute primarily pertained to the affairs of a limited company and the complainant as well as the accused had been involved in its affairs.
Further, the court referred to the judgement in Dilip Singh Versus State of Madhya Pradesh wherein it was held that no pre-condition for deposit of the alleged cheated amount can be imposed nor can a bail petition be converted into recovery proceedings. The court in this case while setting aside the order of the High Court to deposit Rs. 41 lakh as a pre-condition to bail, had observed that "a criminal court, exercising jurisdiction to grant bail/anticipatory bail, is not expected to act as a recovery agent to realise the dues of the complainant, and that too, without any trial."
The decision of the Court:
The court disposed of the plea and made the interim bail absolute.
Case Title: Arun Bhardwaj vs State of Punjab
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Suvir Sehgal
Case No.: CRM-M-40260-2019(O&M)
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Nikhil Ghai and Mr. Prabhdeep S.Bindra
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. A.P.S Tung and Mr. Anmol Jeevan Singh Gill
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
