Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amandeep Singh Sran vs State Of Haryana on 12 December, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:159205
Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:159205
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Reserved on: December 05, 2023
Date of Decision: December 12, 2023
CRM-M-41136-2023
Amandeep Singh Sran ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Present: - Mr. Prateek Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sumit Jain, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
By way of this petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C.,
petitioner prays for his release on regular bail in case FIR No.29 dated
16.01.2019 under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B of IPC, besides Section 3
of the Haryana Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial
Establishment Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act'), registered at
Police Station Faridabad Kotwali, District Faridabad.
2. FIR has been lodged on the complaint of Rajesh Thakur and
others against owners and Directors of HBN Dairy and Allied Company
Limited (hereinafter referred as 'the Company') alleging to have caused
financial loss to lakhs of people by taking money in RD Schemes. It was
alleged that company induced innocent people to invest their money with
assurance to return the amount with interest, but the Company did not
honour their commitments and even the principal amount was not
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:159205
CRM-M-41136-2023 Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:159205
returned. It was further stated by the complainant that the Company
through its 08 Branches had collected crores of rupees and on the pretext
of pendency of proceedings before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and SEBI,
was not returning the money.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that
there is long delay in lodging the FIR, inasmuch as complaint was
presented on 30.03.2018, but FIR was lodged on 16.01.2019. Petitioner is
in judicial custody in Raipur, Chhatisgarh since 2015 and has been in
custody ever since then. His production warrants were obtained and then
he was arrested in this case on 20.05.2019. Learned counsel contends
further that after necessary investigation, challan had already been filed
on 18.07.2019 and it was found during investigation that the Company
had got illegally deposited money in its bank accounts from the investors
and thus, cheated the investors. As per investigation, the Company and its
Directors cheated the complainant to the tune of ₹42,03,795/- by hiring
the agents. The amount was deposited in two bank accounts, which were
being operated by the petitioner and three others. Petitioner was also one
of the Directors of the Company since 2012. Learned counsel further
contends that 30 other similar FIRs have been registered against him on
similar allegations in different States. The Haryana Police had obtained
record from the Raipur Police and thereafter, Section 3 of the Act was
added, as it has been alleged that the Company induced the investors by
floating FD/RD Schemes promising high rate of interest and issued bond
papers. No permission was obtained by the Company to run the Scheme.
4. Learned counsel also contends that the Company
incorporated in December, 1998, having a share capital of ₹11 crores and
paid-up capital of more than ₹10 Crores, used to invite applications from
Page no.2 out of 7 pages
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:159205
CRM-M-41136-2023 Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:159205
customers/ investors for purchase and upbringing of the capital under its
investment scheme. In 2009, the Reserve Bank of India forwarded a
complaint to SEBI against the Company alleging illegal mobilization of
funds from the public. After collecting necessary information/documents,
the SEBI found the scheme floated by the Company to be within the
purview of Collective Investment Scheme (CIS), vide its order dated
12.02.2015 and ordered the Company to abstain from collecting any
money from the public. All the CIS schemes run by the Company were
ordered to be wound up and all the money mobilized through such
schemes to be refunded to its investors. In the appeal against the said
order dated 12.02.2015 filed by the Company before the Securities
Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (for short 'the Tribunal), the Company to
show its bonafide offered to deposit title deeds of the immovable
properties. Learned counsel contends that the Company never intended to
cheat the investors since inception, as the investment schemes floated by
the Company were providing promised rate of interest to its investors.
5. Learned counsel further contends that the entire amount as
stated in the CIS across India has been deposited with the SEBI in the
form of assets as well as original title deeds and that the Tribunal, vide its
judgment dated 28.06.2017 also noted that an amount of ₹50 lacs had
been deposited with SEBI along with the title deeds of the immovable
properties, which would be sold for refunding the money collected from
the investors. Learned counsel contends that as the petitioner complied
with the directions of the SEBI, so it is for SEBI to disburse the amount
towards satisfaction of the claim.
6. Learned counsel further contends that in a petition under
Section 7 of the IBC, 2016 filed against the Company by one of the
Page no.3 out of 7 pages
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:159205
CRM-M-41136-2023 Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:159205
financial creditors, NCLT, Principal Bench, New Delhi, vide its order
dated 14.08.2018 declared a moratorium in terms of Section 14 of the
Code. An interim Resolution Professional was appointed and NCLT
directed the Company not to alienate, dispose, transfer any of its assets or
beneficial interest and further barred any action under Securitization and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest
Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). SEBI was also directed to hand over the title
deeds to the Resolution Professional appointed by the NCLT, vide order
dated 14.08.2018. Said order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court and vide order dated 12.06.2019, status quo has been ordered by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
7. Learned counsel further contends that on similar set of
allegations, as many as 30 FIRs have been registered against the
Company across the country in different States, details of which have
been given in para-No.11 of the petition. Petitioner filed a writ petition
(Criminal) No.341 of 2022 before Hon'ble Supreme Court for clubbing
the said 30 FIRs against the petitioner, which is still pending. Learned
counsel contends further that petitioner is behind the bars since 2015 in
the FIR registered at District Raipur, Chhatisgarh and is in custody in the
present case since 20.05.2019. Till date, no prosecution witness has been
examined so far and thus, further incarnation of the petitioner would
violate Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Trial is still at the initial
stage. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that case of the
prosecution is based upon documentary evidence, which has already been
collected and that no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner nor his
custody will serve any purpose.
8. Learned counsel has also referred to "Sanjay Chandra v.
Page no.4 out of 7 pages
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:159205
CRM-M-41136-2023 Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:159205
CBI", 2014(4) RCR (Criminal) 899, wherein the Supreme Court dealt
with the issue of bail in economic offences and held that though accused
fleeing from justice and possibility of tampering with witnesses should be
a relevant consideration but the Court also held that detention in jail
custody for an indefinite period violates Article 21 of the Constitution of
India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held as under: -
"28. We are conscious of the fact that the accused are charged
with economic offences of huge magnitude. We are also
conscious of the fact that the offences alleged, if proved, may
jeopardize the economy of the country. At the same time, we
cannot lose sight of the fact that the investigating agency has
already completed investigation and the charge sheet is already
filed before the Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi. Therefore, their
presence in the custody may not be necessary for further
investigation. We are of the view that the appellants are entitled
to the grant of bail pending trial on stringent conditions in order
to ally the apprehension expressed by CBI."
With all the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has
prayed for ordering the release of the petitioner on bail.
9. Learned State counsel has strongly opposed the bail petition
not only by pointing out towards the gravity of the offence, but also
towards the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, who is involved in as
many as 30 FIRs, registered in different States. However, it is conceded
on the basis of status report that no prosecution witness has been
examined so far. It is further contended that in case, petitioner is released
on bail, he may influence the material witnesses, which would cause
serious prejudice to the case of the prosecution. Learned State counsel
has further referred to "Parmod Kumar Saxena v. U.O.I. and Ors.",
2008(63) ACC 115 (SC), so as to contend that mere long period of
incarnation in jail cannot be termed per se illegal and such detention in
jail even as under-trial prisoner would not be violative of Article 21 of the
Page no.5 out of 7 pages
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:159205
CRM-M-41136-2023 Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:159205
Constitution of India, as it is permissible under the Code of Criminal
Procedure. However, it is conceded on the basis of custody certificate as
produced from Central Jail, Raipur, where the petitioner is presently
lodged, that petitioner is in custody in the present case for the last 04
years, 01 month and 21 days.
10. I have considered submissions of both sides and have
appraised the record carefully.
11. No doubt that as per allegations, petitioner being one of the
Directors of the Company, duped the numerous investors across the
country for huge amount. However, at the same time, Court cannot ignore
the long incarnation of the petitioner in jail, which is now more than 04
years and also the fact that not even a single witness has been examined
so far. The matter regarding clubbing of 30 FIRs against the petitioner
lodged in different States, stated to be based upon the similar allegations,
is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Title deeds regarding the
properties held by the Company are already stated to have been deposited
with SEBI. The case is mostly based upon the documentary evidence. The
continued detention of the petitioner is not going to serve any useful
purpose. At the same time, having regard to gravity of the offence in the
multiple FIRs against the petitioner, stringent conditions need to be
imposed for releasing him on bail.
12. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances as noted
above, but without commenting anything on the merits of the case,
petition is accepted. Petitioner is directed to be released on bail on
furnishing requisite bonds to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court,
subject to the following conditions: -
1. Petitioner shall furnish personal bonds in the sum of ₹1
crore with two sureties of the like amount. The petitioner as
Page no.6 out of 7 pages
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:159205
CRM-M-41136-2023 Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:159205
well the sureties shall produce either the title deeds of the
immovable property, which should be worth at least of ₹1
crore each; or bank guarantee to the tune of ₹1 crore each; or
FDRs issued by any nationalized Bank with renewal facility.
The said FDRs shall not be encashed till the disposal of the
case.
2. Petitioner shall not leave the country without permission
from the Court and shall deposit his passport before the
Court concerned. In case, passport has already been
impounded by any authority, necessary certificate shall be
produced before the Court concerned in this regard.
3. Petitioner shall provide his e-mail address and mobile
number to the Court concerned and shall not change the
same. In case, for any reason, e-mail address or mobile
number is changed by the petitioner, he shall intimate the
same to the Court within a week positively.
4. Petitioner shall not make any attempt whatsoever to
approach any witness associated with this case, directly or
indirectly; or influence any such witness in any manner
whatsoever.
Allowed accordingly.
December 12, 2023 (DEEPAK GUPTA)
sarita JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:159205
Page no.7 out of 7 pages
7 of 7
