Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bhupinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 27 January, 2023
CRM-M-2254-2022 (O&M) 1
CRM-M-15318-2022(O&M)
CRM-M-33237-2022 (O&M)
CRM-M-41551-2022 (O&M)
CRM-M-46039-2022 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
CRM-M-2254-2022 (O&M)
Bhupinder Singh .... Petitioner
vs.
State of Punjab .... Respondent
CRM-M-15318-2022 (O&M)
Ashu Choudhary .... Petitioner
vs.
State of Punjab .... Respondent
CRM-M-33237-2022 (O&M)
Harpreet Singh .... Petitioner
vs.
State of Punjab .... Respondent
CRM-M-41551-2022 (O&M)
Nishu Chowdhary .... Petitioner
vs.
State of Punjab .... Respondent
CRM-M-46039-2022 (O&M)
Yogesh Kumar .... Petitioner
vs.
State of Punjab .... Respondent
Date of Decision : January 27, 2023
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURBIR SINGH.
* * *
Present : Mr. Preetinder Singh Ahluwalia, Advocate
for the petitioner in CRM-M-2254-2022 (O&M).
Mr. Rahul Bhargava, Advocate
with Ms. Arti Kaur, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in
CRM-M-15318-2022 (O&M) & CRM-M-41551-2022 (O&M).
1 of 12
CRM-M-15318-2022(O&M)
CRM-M-33237-2022 (O&M)
CRM-M-41551-2022 (O&M)
CRM-M-46039-2022 (O&M)
Mr. Guninder Singh Brar, Advocate
for the petitioner in CRM-M-33237-2022 (O&M).
Mr. B. D. Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner in CRM-M-46039-2022 (O&M).
Ms. Himani Arora, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. H. S. Batth, Advocate
for the complainant.
* * *
GURBIR SINGH, J. :
This order shall dispose of the above mentioned five petitions
filed on behalf of Bhupinder Singh, Ashu Choudhary, Harpreet Singh son of
Karnail Singh, Nishu Chowdhary and Yogesh Kumar seeking grant of
regular bail in a case registered against them vide FIR No.155 dated
01.08.2021 under Sections 406, 409, 381, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471,
201/120-B IPC at Police Station Urban Estate, District Patiala.
The FIR in question pertains to misappropriation of funds of
Punjabi University, Patiala by several of its employees, students and some
outsiders as well. The FIR in question was lodged pursuant to a complaint
made by Dr. Vikramjit Kumar Kaushik, Registrar, Punjabi University,
Patiala wherein initially only seven persons were named as accused namely
Nishu Chaudhary, Jatinder Singh (Sevadar), Akashdeep Singh, Sonu
Kumar, Harpreet Singh, Vinay and Nisha Sharma.
It is alleged that it was brought to the knowledge of Vice-
Chancellor, Punjabi University, Patiala that a fraud had been committed
regarding salary/scholarship bills in the names of Akashdeep Singh Jabbal,
2 of 12
CRM-M-15318-2022(O&M)
CRM-M-33237-2022 (O&M)
CRM-M-41551-2022 (O&M)
CRM-M-46039-2022 (O&M)
Sonu Kumar, Harpreet Singh (son of Karnail Singh), Jatinder Singh, Vinay,
Nisha Sharma, all relating to Department of Chemistry, Punjabi University,
Patiala on the basis of forgery and fabrication and lacs of rupees had been
misappropriated. The Vice-Chancellor constituted a Committee comprising
of three members headed by the Registrar which conducted inquiry into the
matter, during the course of which record was perused and disputed bills
were got examined from Handwriting Expert Dr. Inderjit Singh and it was
concluded that the disputed signatures on the bills in question were forged
and did not match with those of Dr. Baljit Singh, Co-ordinator/Head of
UGC-SAP Program of Chemistry Department. It was further found that
Nishu Chaudhary and Jatinder Singh prepared forged salary bills of
Research Fellows. The Committee found that the bills were filled in by
Nishu Chaudhary and Jatinder Singh who were working together in DPM
office and that Jatinder Singh had affixed the forged signatures of Dr. Baljit
Singh and that fake rubber stamp had also been affixed on the forged
signature of Dr. Baljit Singh on the seven bills which were being examined.
It was found that Smt. Raminder Kaur, Superintendent had also connived
with Nishu Chaudhary and Jatinder Singh and had prepared and passed the
seven forged salary/scholarship bills of Research Fellows pertaining to
period w.e.f. January 2021 to April 2021. It was found that none of the
beneficiaries were genuine Research Fellows and that the scheme under
which the amounts were being claimed had ended in the year 2019. The
Committee concluded that Nishu Chaudhary, Raminder Kaur and Jatinder
3 of 12
CRM-M-15318-2022(O&M)
CRM-M-33237-2022 (O&M)
CRM-M-41551-2022 (O&M)
CRM-M-46039-2022 (O&M)
Singh, Peon had stolen/misplaced/destroyed establishment checking records
pertaining to the years 2019-2020, 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 so as to avoid
detection. Nishu Chaudhary was also alleged to have made changes in the
utilization certificates of UGC-CAS (Physics).
After lodging of the FIR on 01.08.2021 on the basis of
complaint made by the Registrar, Punjabi University, Patiala on 15.07.2021,
the Registrar, on the basis of further inquiries made by the Committee,
furnished information including account details regarding involvement of
more accused vide letter no. 1084/R dated 08.10.2021 wherein Sukhdeep
Singh, Parminder Singh, Dalip Kumar, Naveen Kumar, Harpreet Singh (son
of Amrik Singh), Yogesh Kumar, Narinder, Lovepreet and Gurmukh Singh
were also stated to be the beneficiaries of the misappropriated amount.
The allegations against each of the petitioners are that
Bhupinder Singh was working as Technical Assistant. The amount credited
in his account from the account of University using fake bills is
Rs.94,34,288/-. As per his Custody Certificate, he is in custody since
01.10.2021. The amount credited to the account of Ashu Choudhary is
Rs.10,24,800/-. He is brother of Nishu Chowdhary and is in custody since
29.09.2021. He is not employee of the University. Harpreet Singh (son of
Karnail Singh) was former Research Scholar (Ph.D. Student). The amount
credited to his account was Rs.77,44,446/-. The balance amount in his
account was Rs.18,32,928/- which is freezed. He is also not an employee of
the University and is in custody since 17.03.2022. Nishu Chowdhary was
4 of 12
CRM-M-15318-2022(O&M)
CRM-M-33237-2022 (O&M)
CRM-M-41551-2022 (O&M)
CRM-M-46039-2022 (O&M)
working as a Senior Assistant in the University. No amount was credited in
his account from University's account. However, balance in his account
was 9,88,244/-, which stands freezed. As per Custody Certificate, he is in
custody since 01.10.2021. Yogesh Kumar was working as a Clerk on Ad-
hoc basis in the University. The amount credited in his account was
Rs.1,01,93,873/-. His services were terminated. No amount was freezed
from his account. He is in custody since 22.05.2022.
Thus, the case of prosecution is that Nishu Chaudhary, in
connivance with other officials of the University, had prepared forged and
fabricated bills and had got released huge different amounts as scholarships
and got them credited in the accounts of their known persons, from whom
he used to get back some amount in cash.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners
Bhupinder Singh, Ashu Choudhary and Yogesh Kumar were not named in
the FIR. Only Nishu Chowdhary and Harpreet Singh son of Karnail Singh
were named in the FIR. The petitioners have been falsely implicated.
Every year, audits of the accounts of University are conducted. None of the
auditors have pointed out any irregularity in the accounts. There is no
allegation of any forgery or cheating against the petitioners except Nishu
Chowdhary. The case of the petitioners is based on a documentary
evidence. Co-accused Sonu Kumar has already been granted regular bail in
case CRM-M-49865-2021 (O&M) by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
on 23.12.2021. The case is triable by Magistrate. The challan is already
5 of 12
CRM-M-15318-2022(O&M)
CRM-M-33237-2022 (O&M)
CRM-M-41551-2022 (O&M)
CRM-M-46039-2022 (O&M)
presented but the trial is going on at a slow pace. The trial is likely to take
considerable time. The culpability of the petitioners would be decided only
during trial of the case. The object of bail is to secure the appearance of the
accused during trial of the case. Refusal of bail is a restriction on the
personal liberty of an individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. There is no ground to further detain the petitioners.
Reliance is being placed on Sanjay Chandra v. CBI reported as 2012(1)
SCC 40, Dipak Shubhashchandra Mehta v. CBI reported as 2012(4)
SCC 134, Ashok Dhingra v. NCT of Delhi reported as 2000 (9) SCC 533,
Giri Raj v. State of Haryana reported as 2019(1) RCR (Criminal) 530,
Anil Kumar v. State of Punjab reported as 2013(3) RCR (Criminal) 854,
Surinder Pal Singh v. State of Punjab reported as CRM-M-22982-2020,
Rajesh v. State of Haryana reported as CRM-M-16050-2021 and
Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI reported as Doc ID 2011291.
Learned State counsel assisted by counsel for the complainant
has opposed all the petitions and submitted that it is patently proved that
petitioner Nishu Chowdhary had prepared bills/forged documents and got
the different amounts transferred in the accounts of other persons including
petitioner Bhupinder Singh, Ashu Choudhary, Harpreet Singh son of
Karnail Singh and Yogesh Kumar. Ashu Choudhary is brother of Nishu
Chowdhary. The said amount could not be recovered. There is no ground
to release them on bail. However, learned State counsel has not denied the
custody period of the petitioners mentioned above.
6 of 12
CRM-M-15318-2022(O&M)
CRM-M-33237-2022 (O&M)
CRM-M-41551-2022 (O&M)
CRM-M-46039-2022 (O&M)
Heard.
In a landmark decision in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau
of Investigation reported as (2012) 1 SCC 40, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India crystallized the law in respect of regular bail in the following
paragraphs :-
"21. In bail applications, generally, it has
been laid down from the earliest times that the
object of bail is to secure the appearance of the
accused person at his trial by reasonable amount
of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor
preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be
considered a punishment, unless it is required to
ensure that an accused person will stand his trial
when called upon. The courts owe more than
verbal respect to the principle that punishment
begins after conviction, and that every man is
deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly
found guilty.
22. From the earliest times, it was
appreciated that detention in custody pending
completion of trial could be a cause of great
hardship. From time to time, necessity demands
that some unconvicted persons should be held in
custody pending trial to secure their attendance at
the trial but in such cases, "necessity" is the
operative test. In this country, it would be quite
contrary to the concept of personal liberty
enshrined in the Constitution that any person
should be punished in respect of any matter, upon
7 of 12
CRM-M-15318-2022(O&M)
CRM-M-33237-2022 (O&M)
CRM-M-41551-2022 (O&M)
CRM-M-46039-2022 (O&M)
which, he has not been convicted or that in any
circumstances, he should be deprived of his
liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper
with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the
most extraordinary circumstances.
23. Apart from the question of prevention
being the object of refusal of bail, one must not
lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before
conviction has a substantial punitive content and
it would be improper for any court to refuse bail
as a mark of disapproval of former conduct
whether the accused has been convicted for it or
not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for
the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment
as a lesson.
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
46. 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
jeopardise 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.
8 of 12
CRM-M-15318-2022(O&M)
CRM-M-33237-2022 (O&M)
CRM-M-41551-2022 (O&M)
CRM-M-46039-2022 (O&M)
47. In the view we have taken, it may not
be necessary to refer and discuss other issues
canvassed by the learned counsel for the parties
and the case laws relied on in support of their
respective contentions. We clarify that we have
not expressed any opinion regarding the other
legal issues canvassed by the learned counsel for
the parties.
48. In the result, we order that the
appellants be released on bail on their executing
a bond with two solvent sureties, each in a sum of
Rs. 5 lakhs to the satisfaction of the Special
Judge, CBI, New Delhi on the following
conditions:
(a) The appellants 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 to disclose such
facts to the Court or to any other authority.
(b) They shall remain present before the
court on the dates fixed for hearing of the case. If
they want to remain absent, then they shall take
prior permission of the court and in case of
unavoidable circumstances for remaining absent,
they shall immediately give intimation to the
appropriate court and also to the Superintendent,
CBI and request that they may be permitted to be
present through the counsel.
(c) They will not dispute their identity as
the accused in the case.
(d) They shall surrender their passport,
9 of 12
CRM-M-15318-2022(O&M)
CRM-M-33237-2022 (O&M)
CRM-M-41551-2022 (O&M)
CRM-M-46039-2022 (O&M)
if any (if not already surrendered), and in case,
they are not a holder of the same, they shall swear
to an affidavit. If they have already surrendered
before the learned Special Judge, CBI, that fact
should also be supported by an affidavit.
(e) We reserve liberty to CBI to make an
appropriate application for modification/
recalling the order passed by us, if for any
reason, the appellants violate any of the
conditions imposed by this Court."
In paragraph no.27 of this judgment it is observed as under :-
"45) In `Bihar Fodder Scam', this Court,
taking into consideration the seriousness of the
charges alleged and the maximum sentence of
imprisonment that could be imposed including the
fact that the appellants were in jail for a period
more than six months as on the date of passing of
the order, was of the view that the further
detention of the appellants as pre-trial prisoners
would not serve any purpose."
In case Giri Raj (supra), a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
granted bail since accused was in custody for 11 months. It was held as
under :-
"14. The principles laid down by the
Supreme Court in Gurcharan Singh and Others
Vs. State (Delhi Administration) AIR 1978
Supreme Court 179 were followed by the Supreme
Court in Miss Harsh Sawhney Vs. Union
Territory reported in AIR 1978 SCC 1016 and in
10 of 12
CRM-M-15318-2022(O&M)
CRM-M-33237-2022 (O&M)
CRM-M-41551-2022 (O&M)
CRM-M-46039-2022 (O&M)
Mohan Singh Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh.
In Mohan Singh Vs. Union Territory,
Chandigarh, reported in AIR 1978 Supreme
Court 1095, even though the counsel for the State
argued that the corruption of which the accused
was prima facie guilty was substantial, the
Supreme Court held that it was not sufficient
reason to refuse bail. In paragraph 2 of the said
judgment the Supreme Court held thus :-
"Counsel for the State pressed before us
that the corruption of which the appellant
was guilty prima facie according to the
results of the investigation) was
substantial. Let us assume so. Even then
refusal of bail is not an indirect process of
punishing an accused person before he is
convicted. This is a confusion regarding the
rationale of bail. This Court has explained
the real basis of bail law in Gurcharan
Singh Vs. State (Delhi Administration)
AIR 1978 SC 179; (1978 Crl. L.J. 129)."
In case Anil Kumar (supra), a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
granted bail since accused was in custody for 07 months. There were
allegations of misappropriation of Rs.4.75 crores.
Similarly, in case Surinder Pal Singh (supra), a Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court granted bail since accused was in custody for more than
6-1/2 months. There were allegations of misappropriation of Rs.1.05 crores.
Keeping in view the facts that the offence is being tried by
Magistrate and there is no other case against the petitioners, further
detention of the petitioners would not serve any useful purpose since
culpability of the petitioners would be established only during the trial.
11 of 12
CRM-M-15318-2022(O&M)
CRM-M-33237-2022 (O&M)
CRM-M-41551-2022 (O&M)
CRM-M-46039-2022 (O&M)
All the petitions are, therefore, accepted and the petitioners are
ordered to be released on regular bail on their furnishing bail bonds/surety
bonds to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/
Duty Magistrate concerned.
A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of other
connected matters.
January 27, 2023 (GURBIR SINGH)
monika JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned ? Yes/No.
Whether reportable ? Yes/No.
12 of 12
