Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sant Chaturvedi vs State Of Punjab on 9 March, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
208
CRM-M-14405-2021
Date of Decision: 09.03.2022
Sant Chaturvedi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL
Present: Mr. Mahir Sood, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. M.S.Dullat, Addl. AG, Punjab,
assisted by ASI Labh Singh.
GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking grant of anticipatory
bail in respect of a case registered against him vide FIR No.10 dated
20.01.2020 registered under Sections 420, 406, 120B IPC at Police
Station Dhakoli, District SAS Nagar.
2. The FIR in question was lodged at the instance of Sachin Sharma, Branch
Manager, SBI, wherein it is broadly alleged that M/s Dollar Sales
Corporation and its proprietor, namely, Sant Chaturvedi (petitioner)
approached the complainant for obtaining credit facility of Rs.10 lakhs as
Cash Credit Limit and Vijendra Kumar son of Mool Chand offered to
execute the guarantee letter and also mortgaged his property for the credit
facility advanced to the petitioner and his proprietary concern. The said
request was sanctioned on 23.12.2014 and as per the promissory note
dated 23.12.2014, the accused firm of the petitioner had not deposited the
1 of 3
entire sale proceeds of the hypothecated stock with the complainant-
Bank, but the accused firm of the petitioner had misappropriated funds
for its own use with a view to defraud the complainant-bank.
3. At the time of issuance of notice of motion on 31.03.2021, the following
order was passed:
"This is a petition that has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail to the
petitioner in FIR No.10 dated 20.01.2020 registered under Sections 420,
406, 120B IPC at Police Station Dhakoli, District SAS Nagar.
It is inter alia contended that the FIR has been lodged only as a means
to pressurize the petitioner herein to settle the dues owed to the
petitioner. In fact, the Bank has already resorted to due process by
initiating proceedings under the Debt Recovery Act and an Original
Application is pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-III at
Chandigarh. It is further contended that custodial interrogation of the
petitioner herein would not be required, as all evidence pertaining to the
loan taken would arise out of the documents, which are already in
possession of the Bank. He further relies upon the judgment rendered by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CBI New Delhi Vs. Duncans Agro
Industries Ltd. passed in Special Leave Petition (Crl) No.590 of 2019
decided on 09.07.1996 wherein it has been held that in case the
hypothecated goods are sold as in the instant case, the question of
breach of trust would not arise, as goods are still in the ownership of the
petitioner herein.
Notice of motion.
Mr. Randeep Singh Khaira, AAG, Punjab, who is present through the
medium of video conferencing, accepts notice for the respondent-State
and would submit that in fact recovery of liquor has been effected from
the house of the petitioner herein and therefore, his custodial
interrogation would be required.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the paper
book.
The petitioner is directed to join the investigation within a period of one
week and on his doing so, the petitioner be released on interim bail
subject to his furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of
2 of 3
Arresting/Investigating Officer. However, the petitioner shall continue
to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so and shall
abide by the conditions as provided under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
List for further consideration on 02.09.2021."
4. Learned State counsel upon instructions has informed that pursuant to
interim directions issued by this Court, the petitioner has since joined
investigation and is not required for any custodial interrogation. It has,
however, been informed that the petitioner is involved in 3 other identical
cases.
5. I have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court.
6. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that in 2 other identical
matters, the petitioner has already been granted anticipatory bail i.e.
CRM-M-14633-2021 (order dated 07.02.2022) and CRM-M-14821-2021
(order dated 17.02.2022).
7. Bearing in mind the aforesaid position, wherein the petitioner has already
joined investigation and is not required for custodial interrogation and
has already been granted anticipatory bail in 2 other identical matters, the
petition is accepted and the interim directions issued by this Court vide
order dated 31.03.2021 are hereby made absolute subject to the condition
that the petitioner shall join investigation as and when called upon to do
so and cooperate with the Investigating Officer and shall also abide by
the conditions as provided under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.
09.03.2022 (GURVINDER SINGH GILL)
Vimal JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
3 of 3
