Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ranjan Kohli vs State Of Punjab on 24 March, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: 24th March, 2022
1.
Criminal Miscellaneous No.M-258 of 2022
Ranjan Kohli
..... PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
State of Punjab
..... RESPONDENT(S)
...
Criminal Miscellaneous No.M-1497 of 2022
Lalita Basandra & another
..... PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
State of Punjab
..... RESPONDENT(S)
...
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANT PARKASH
...
PRESENT: - Mr. Ashwani Kumar Antil, Advocate, for the petitioner
in CRM-M-258 of 2022.
Mr. Ranjit Singh Cheema, Advocate, for the petitioners
in CRM-M-1497 of 2022.
Mr. V.G. Jauhar, Senior Deputy Advocate General,
Punjab.
Mr. Sandeep S. Majithia, Advocate, for the complainant.
. . .
Sant Parkash, J
This judgment shall decide aforementioned two petitions as
they arise from same FIR and involve similar facts and questions of law.
AVIN KUMAR
2022.03.24 11:38
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document.
CRM-M Nos.258 & 1497 of 2022 [2]
The petitions have been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for
grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.0225 dated 07.12.2021 registered at
Police Station, Jodhewal, District Ludhiana.
The present FIR has been registered on the basis of
complaint moved by Sunil Kumar against Ranjan Kohli, Rajeev Basandra,
Payal Basandra wife of Rajeev Basanda, Kiran Basandra and his wife Lalita
Basandra alleging that there is a temple in his house made by his brother
Amit Kumar @ Rinku Baba where he also worships and perform Pooja.
Rajeev Basandra and his family also used to visit there. Subsequently,
Rajeev Bsandra induced the complainant to invest money in their business of
export on the assurance of getting huge profit. On the asking of Rajeev
Basandra, complainant alongwith Gurjinder Singh, Gurdeep Singh @ Neeta,
Vinay Jindal, Robin Simak and Rishab Simak invested approximately ` 43
lac vide different transactions in their business on the assurance of
petitioners that they would get 30% return on the invested money and same
would be returned whenever they need. An agreement dated 17.07.2020 was
also executed by Rajeev Basandra in favour of complainant & other persons,
whereupon they transferred ` 2,88,000/- in the account of brother of
complainant namely Amit Kumar @ Rinku Baba. On 10.05.2021,
complainant alongwith Gurdeep Singh @ Neeta demanded their money but
Rajeev Basandra threatened them of implication in false cases.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that they
have been falsely implicated in the instant case at the instance of
complainant. They have nothing to do with the alleged offence and are
innocent. No recovery has been effected from the petitioners. Moreover,
contents of the FIR reveal that the present case is a civil dispute.
AVIN KUMAR
2022.03.24 11:38
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document.
CRM-M Nos.258 & 1497 of 2022 [3]
Complainant registered the present case against the petitioners just to
humiliate and harass them. The petitioners have been allegedly implicated in
the present case only to extort money though there is no specific allegation
regarding cheating or threat. They are not involved in any other case of
similar nature. The petitioners are ready to join investigation and shall
cooperate with the investigating agency.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent - State as
well as counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the prayer
made in the petition. Learned counsel contended that petitioners hatched a
criminal conspiracy and in pursuance of same, they induced complainant to
invest money in their business and extracted money on the pretext of giving
30% return, however, neither money nor any profit was ever returned, rather
threatened the complainant. During inquiry, Rajeev Basandra admitted that
he had received the payment through bank transactions and failed to
substantiate his version of export as he was not able to produce any purchase
bill or any transportation document. Rajeev Basandra alongwith his family
members and petitioners intentionally cheated the complainant and other
persons and extracted money to the tune of approximately ` 43 lac.
Learned counsel have contended that there are specific
allegations against the petitioner Ranjan Kohli and details of the transactions
made to the petitioner are as follows:-
1. ` 50,000/- dated 02.04.2019 by Amit Kumar @ Rinku through Axis
Bank.
2. ` 60,000/- dated 09.09.2019 by Amit Kumar @ Rinku through Axis
Bank.
AVIN KUMAR
2022.03.24 11:38
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document.
CRM-M Nos.258 & 1497 of 2022 [4]
3. ` 50,000/0 dated 06.02.2020 by Sunil Kumar (complainant) through
Canara Bank.
4. ` 40,000/1 dated 06.02.2020 by Sunil Kumar through Canara Bank.
5. ` 40,000/- dated 06.02.2020 by Reetu Dhawan (complainant's eife)
through Canara Bank.
Learned counsel further contended that Rajeev Basandra in
his statement as well as in his reply dated 17.05.2021 sent through counsel
had admitted that money was transferred through bank transactions to them
and petitioners were also partners. Learned counsel further contended that
custodial interrogation of petitioners is required to know the modus operandi
regarding the offence, to recover the money as well as to know whether any
other person is involved or not.
I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the
record.
As per the prosecution version, complainant has been
cheated by the petitioners alongwith Rajeev Basandra. It was Rajeev
Basandra who induced complainant & others to invest money in his business
on the assurance of giving 30% return. As per para 5 of reply, five
transactions though have been shown allegedly made by the complainant
party but there is no documentary evidence which would show that the
aforesaid amount was deposited in the accounts of petitioners. Though,
presence of the petitioners is reflected but there is no specific allegations
against them that they ever induced the complainant to invest money.
Rather, it was Rajeev Basandra who is the main culprit and he is the person
who induced the complainant and others to invest money in his business and
cheated the complainant on the false pretext of giving 30% profit on the
AVIN KUMAR
2022.03.24 11:38
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document.
CRM-M Nos.258 & 1497 of 2022 [5]
invested money. Beside, Rajeev Basandra also threatened the complainant
party when they asked him to return the money.
On the other hand, account details of petitioner Ranjan
Kohli, for the last three years, have been placed on file and no such
transaction is reflected there that any such amount was ever credited in his
account.
With regard to the other petitioners, who are the parents of
the main accused, no particular role or entrustment has been attributed.
Keeping in view the totality of facts & circumstances of the
case and without commenting anything on its merits, both the petitions are
allowed and it is ordered that in the event of arrest, petitioners shall be
enlarged on bail to the satisfaction of Investigating Officer and subject to the
following conditions enshrined under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.:-
1. The petitioners shall make themselves available for
interrogation by as and when required;
2. They shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to
dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer;
3. They shall not leave India without the previous permission
of the Court;
(Sant Parkash)
Judge
24th March, 2022
avin
Whether Speaking/ Reasoned: Yes/ No
Whether Reportable: Yes/ No
AVIN KUMAR
2022.03.24 11:38
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document.
