Baljit Singh Sandhu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 12166 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Baljit Singh Sandhu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 May, 2024

Author: Prem Narayan Singh

Bench: Prem Narayan Singh

                                                          1
                          IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                AT INDORE
                                                   BEFORE
                                  HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
                                                ON THE 1 st OF MAY, 2024
                                       MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 14851 of 2024

                         BETWEEN:-
                         BALJIT SINGH SANDHU S/O SH. CHARANJIT SINGH
                         SANDHU, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, H. NO. 24, TOWER
                         ENCLAVE, PHASE 1, BADALA ROAD BHARGO CAMP,
                         JALANDAR (PUNJAB)

                                                                                       .....APPLICANT
                         (SHRI SANJEEV PATIYAL, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER .

                         AND
                         THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
                         OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION BARWANI
                         (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                   .....RESPONDENTS
                         (SHRI SURENDRA GUPTA APPEARING ON BEHALF OF ADVOCATE
                         GENERAL.

                               Th is application coming on hearing this day, th e court passed the
                         following:
                                                           ORDER

1. This first bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail relating to Crime No.475/2016 dated (not mentioned), registered at Police Station- Barwani, District-Barwani (M.P.) for the offence under Sections 420/34, 409, 120-B of IPC & under Section 3, 4, 5, 6 of Prize Chit and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act 1978 and under Section 6 of the M.P. Nikshepakon ka Sanranshan Adhiniyam, 2000. The applicant is in custody since 26.02.2024.

2. As per the prosecution story, being a Director of the company namely

BN Gold Real Estate and Allied Limited, the petitioner alongwith other co- accused has embezzled the funds of approximately 50 crores on national level by cheating multiple persons in the name of forged and fabricated schemes.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. He is resident of State of Punjab and never came to Indore. It is also submitted that only being a Director of the company, the petitioner has been implicated in the present case. As per his information, total 10 FIRs were registered against the petitioner and out of in 09 FIRs he has already been enlarged on bail. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance over the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of

Ravindranatha Bajpe vs. Manglore Sepcial Economic Zone Lted. and others Etc. in CRA Nos.1047 -1048/2021 decided on 27.07.2021 and Rajesh Viren Shah vs. Redington (India) Limited passed on 14.02.2024 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that due to only being a Director of a company, no one can be involved in the offence. It is further submitted that since, in the similar offence, the petitioner has already been granted bail by Hon'ble Apex Court, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail in the present case also. Hence, prays for regular bail.

4. On the other hand, counsel for the State has opposed the prayer by submitting that the offence has been committed between 2009 to 2015 and the petitioner was Directed since 04.05.2009 to 01.06.2011, therefore, the petitioner has played active role in committing the offence. There are specific allegations in the FIR as well as in the statements of the complainants/victims, the offence is involved embezzlement of huge amount of approximately 50 crores, there are multiple FIRs against the petitioner in whole country, hence, he should not be

granted bail.

5. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. So far as the citations cited by learned counsel for the petitioner are concerned in the case of Ravindranath Bajpe (supra) and Rajesh Viren Shah (supra), both the matters having different factual matrix so they are not applicable to the fact of this case which is related to the involvement of accused in embezzlement of huge amount.

7. Apart from that, it is admitted that the offence has been committed between the year of 2009 to 2015 and the petitioner had been as a Director of the said company since 04.05.2009 to 01.06.2011, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner has not played any role in committing the offence. There are specific allegations in the FIR as well as in the statements of the complainants/victims, in this offence embezzlement of huge amount (approximately 50 crores is involved), hence, at this stage, no case of bail is made out. The bail application is rejected accordingly.

(PREM NARAYAN SINGH) JUDGE amit