Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sachin Gudalia vs State Of Haryana on 14 December, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:161570
CRM-M-47876-2023 1
2023:PHHC:161570
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
SR. No.
CRM-M-47876-2023 (O&M)
Date of decision:14.12.2023
Sachin Gudalia
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S. SHEKHAWAT
Present: Mr. Sunil Saharan, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mrs. Sheenu Sura, DAG, Haryana.
N.S. SHEKHAWAT, J.
1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 439
Cr.P.C. before this Court with a prayer to grant regular bail to him in case
FIR No.267 dated 17.05.2022 registered under Section
406/420/506/201/120-B IPC and under Sections 3/4/5/6 of the Price Chits
and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning Act), 1978 at Police Station, Civil
Lines, District Hisar.
2. The FIR in the present case was got registered by Chander
Shekhar son of Anil Kumar, resident of Patel Nagar, Hisar by alleging that
few days ago, he received a call on "telegram" and the caller disclosed his
name as Aina and said that they had an app. namely WinMoney, which is
android link chain app and the same was approved by Government of India.
It deals in chit fund schemes and several persons had invested their money in
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:161570
the scheme. The caller induced the complainant to invest in the scheme and
he had deposited a sum of Rs.12 to Rs.15 lacs in the said 04 IDs of the
application from the different bank accounts. For sometime, the complainant
was paid the commission, but later on when the complainant checked the
application, he came to know that the payment was stopped and his IDs and
accounts were blocked. Later on, the complainant received a call on
telegram that in case the complainant deposited Rs.80,000/- in their account,
his payment in the WinMoney application would be paid to him. However,
the complainant told him that he had already deposited his entire amount in
WinMoney app. and he was not left with anything more. The caller gave his
mobile No.9773524619 to the complainant and gave his ID Guruji.jil2@ybl
to him and asked him to deposit the amount in the same. When the
complainant talked to one Aina on telegram, he was told that they had
defrauded people through WinMoney app. and he could do whatever he
wanted. With these allegations, the FIR in the present case was registered
against Aina and other accused.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
vehemently argued that the petitioner has been falsely involved by the police
with some ulterior motive. The only evidence against the petitioner was the
disclosure statement suffered by co-accused and the evidentiary value of the
said disclosure statement was yet to be adjudicated upon by the trial Court.
Still further, the FIR was initially registered against unknown persons and
later on the police implicated several persons by adding offence under
Section 120-B IPC in the present case. He further contended that the
petitioner was a poor worker, working with R.K. Enterprises, where the
main accused Uday Mehta met him and offered him an opportunity to get
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:161570
the commission of Rs.50,000/- per month by opening a bank account, which
was being used by Uday Mehta regularly at a subsequent stage. Even the
signed cheque book and passbook of the said account were kept by Uday
Mehta himself for the purpose of money transactions. Learned counsel
further contended that the petitioner had fallen in the trap of Uday Mehta
and gave a consent to open an account in his name and handed over the
signed cheque and pass-book to him. There is no allegation against the
petitioner that he had received any money or asked, enticed anyone to
deposit money in his account. Apart from that, there was no evidence to
prove that the petitioner had withdrawn any amount from his account or had
any bank transaction with anyone. He further submitted that the account
was opened by the petitioner on the advice of co-accused Uday Mehta and
had received a sum of Rs.50,000/- for the said purpose. He further
contended that the petitioner was involved with the aid of Section 120-B IPC
and was in custody since 08.06.2022. Thus, further detention of the
petitioner will not serve any meaningful purpose.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has filed a
status report by way of affidavit dated 14.12.2023 of Deputy Superintendent
of Police, Law & Order, Hisar, which is taken on record.
5. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that the
petitioner/accused Sachin Gudaliya was having a bank account bearing
No.259601396729, maintained at Indusland Bank, Ahmedabad and after
finding sufficient incriminating evidence against him, he was arrested by the
police. The petitioner admitted that his friend, namely, Pintu Rajput and
Uday Mehta were also involved in the present crime. Accused Pintu Rajput
and the petitioner had suffered their respective disclosure statements and
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:161570
admitted the allegations levelled by the complainant in the present case.
Apart from that, during the course of investigation, the name of the
petitioner had cropped up. From the disclosure statement of co-accused
Udey Mehta, it was found that the co-accused Uday Mehta had burnt the
account book and signed cheques of the petitioner/accused Sachin Gudaliya,
which were kept by the co-accused Uday Mehta for shifting the amount
from bank account of the petitioner. Uday Mehta had opened bank account
in the name of the petitioner in the year 2021 in Indusind Bank and through
this account of the petitioner, they used to deposit and withdraw the money
from the bank accounts, earned by them by committing the fraud. Uday
Mehta used to call from his Whatsapp number to Pintu Rajput and gave
instructions to withdraw the amount by using signed cheques of the
petitioner. Apart from that, during the course of investigation, it also
revealed that WhatsApp number of petitioner/accused bearing
No.9601396727 was in touch with the main accused Uday Mehta. Further,
the applicant helped Uday Mehta in transferring of funds from one place to
another and the applicant used to get the commission for the same. Even
there were allegations of Rs.318,00,00,000 (Three hundred eighteen crore)
in the bank account of the petitioner. Apart from that, the bail application of
Uday Mehta and Aakash have already been dismissed by this Court.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
case file minutely.
7. In fact, co-accused Aakash Sharma had also applied for grant of
regular bail by way of CRM-M-44238-2022, however, this Court had
dismissed the bail petition by observing as follows:-
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:161570
"No doubt while granting bail the Court has to keep in
mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in
support thereof, severity of the punishment which conviction
will entail, the character of the accused and facts and
circumstances of the case. It is also one of the factors while
considering the bail that there is a reasonable possibility of
securing the presence of the accused during trial and
reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with.
The larger interest of the public/State and some other similar
considerations are also there. It has been held in various
judgments of this Court as well as Hon'ble the Apex Court that
in economic offence, the view point is to be taken differently
with different approach in case of bail. The economic offence
having deep rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of
public funds needs to be taken seriously and considered as
grave offence affecting the economy of the country as a whole
and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the
country as has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in judgment of
case Nimmagadda Prasad Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
AIR 2013 SCC 2821."
8. Apart from that, Aakash Sharma had approached the Hon'ble
Supreme Court vide SLP (Criminal) No.14707 of 2023, seeking regular bail
and the said petition was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on
15.05.2023 and the trial Court was directed to conclude the trial within a
period of six months from that day.
9. From the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the
sides, this Court is of the considered opinion that a fraud of several hundred
crores of rupees had been played by Uday Mehta and the present petitioner.
Even the amount involved in the present case is hundreds of crores and the
matter is under investigation qua other co-accused. Furthermore, the
petitioner had earlier filed a petition for grant of regular bail before this
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:161570
Court by way of CRM-M-10221-2023 and after making the detailed
submissions, learned counsel had withdrawn the bail petition of the
petitioner on 21.08.2023. However, the present bail application has been
filed on 19.09.2023, i.e. within a period of less than one month and there is
no change of circumstances in such a short period. Even on this ground, the
present petition is liable to be dismissed.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and going
through the case file, this Court has arrived at a firm conclusion that it is a
case of serious fraud committed by the petitioner and other co-accused and
the total amount involved in this case is hundreds of crores of rupees and the
matter is still under investigation qua other accused. It is apparent from the
investigation that the petitioner had conspired with other accused and the
accused transferred money from one account to another, just to mislead the
investigators and the general public. Apart from that, this Court as well as
the Hon'ble Supreme Court have held in a series of judgments that economic
offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different
approach in the matter of bail. The petitioner along with his co-accused had
hatched deep-rooted conspiracies and cheated hundreds of innocent
investors from the public, involving crores of rupees and such offences need
to be viewed seriously and must be considered as very grave offences. Even
during the course of investigation, it has also been found that serious threats
have been extended to the complainant and the witnesses of the present case.
Apart from that, the investigation is at a very crucial stage against some of
the co-accused, who are yet to be arrested and are still absconding from the
process of law. Apart from that, it has already been found during
investigation that, considerable share of the amount involved in the present
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:161570
case has also been transferred to the account of person Mubasir Mamoon,
resident of Rajpora, Pulwama, Jammu and Kashmir and there are well
founded apprehensions that the said money may be used for terror fundings.
Even during the investigation, it has been found that Jahangir Ahmad and
Umar Shafi, brothers of Mubasir Mamoon are involved in terrorist activities
and are already in custody in FIR No.108/2022, Police Station Awantipura,
District Pulwama, which has been registered for commission of the offences
under Unlawful Activities Prevention Act.
11. In view of the above discussion, the present petition must fail
and is accordingly, ordered to be dismissed.
(N.S. SHEKHAWAT)
12.12.2023 JUDGE
mks
Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES / NO
Whether Reportable: YES / NO
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:161570
7 of 7
