Punjab-Haryana High Court
Varinder Mohan Singhal vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 30 April, 2024
Author: Manjari Nehru Kaul
Bench: Manjari Nehru Kaul
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059191
2024 : PHHC : 059191
215
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
1. CRM-M No.17213 of 2024
Varinder Mohan Singhal
... Petitioner
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation
... Respondent
2. CRM-M No.17216 of 2024
Gagandeep Singhal
... Petitioner
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation
... Respondent
Date of decision: 30th April, 2024
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL
Present: Mr. Randeep S. Rai, Senior Advocate and
Mr. Chetan Mittal, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Sehej Sandhawalia and Mr. Farhad Kohli, Advocates
for the petitioners.
Mr. Gagandeep S. Wasu, Spl. Public Prosecutor
for the respondent/CBI.
MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioners in both the petitions detailed hereinabove
are seeking the concession of bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in case
FIR No.RC0052020A0011 dated 08.07.2020 under Sections 420, 406,
403 read with Section 120B of the IPC and sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2)
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 registered at Police Station
ACB Chandigarh which culminated into final report under Section 173
1 of 13
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059191
CRM-M No.17213 & 17216 of 2024 2024 : PHHC : 059191
Cr.P.C. wherein the petitioners have been summoned by the learned
Special Magistrate CBI, Mohali.
2. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners has reiterated the submissions made by him on the previous
date of hearing that the petitioners are Chartered Accountants who have
been falsely implicated in the present case without there being any
evidence to link them with the crime in question. The petitioners were
neither named in the initial complaint made by the Punjab National
Bank nor was any specific role levelled against them at the time of
registration of the FIR in question; however, they came to be
nominated as accused only in the final report which was submitted
under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. by the Central Bureau of Investigation.
Furthermore, even as per the reply filed by the CBI before the trial
Court, the petitioners had fully cooperated with the investigation
pursuant to the notice issued under Section 160 Cr.P.C., by providing
the agency all the requisite and requested documentary material.
Learned senior counsel submits that in the circumstances, once the
petitioners had fully cooperated with the Investigating Agency and
there was no flight risk attached to them, sending them in custody
would be a futile exercise. While drawing the attention of this Court to
the police report, he has further submitted that even therein, there was
no insinuation that the petitioners had deceived or cheated the Bank or
forged any documents. Additionally, as per the internal enquiry carried
out by the Bank also, no incriminatory material had come against them.
2 of 13
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059191
CRM-M No.17213 & 17216 of 2024 2024 : PHHC : 059191
3. With respect to the involvement of petitioner Gagandeep
Singhal in the alleged crime, it has been submitted that it is totally
unfounded as he was neither a CA/Auditor of M/s Golden Agrarian
Private Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Company') nor a partner in
the accountancy firm i.e. Anil Sood & others. Therefore, he could not
be held liable in the present case, especially considering that he had not
signed or prepared any reports on behalf of the Company.
4. It has been further submitted by learned senior counsel that
the sole allegation levelled against the petitioners is of change in the
classification of 'Sundry Creditors' to 'Unsecured Creditors' in some of
the balance sheets of the Company, however, it has been asserted that
the inputs in the audit report were based on the data provided by the
Accountant, co-accused Chhittar Mal Saini, and the Directors of the
Company itself. Moreover, it has been asserted that both these
categories ('Sundry Creditors' and 'Unsecured Creditors') represent
liabilities, and the change does not alter the financial standing of the
Company in any manner whatsoever, much less misrepresent its assets
for loan security.
5. Still further, it has been argued by the learned senior
counsel for the petitioners that even as per the police report, changes in
the balance sheet/audit report had been carried out by co-accused
Chhittar Mal Saini, on the directions of Harinderjit Singh; therefore, the
data which had been provided to the petitioners for audit reports had
already been tampered with, by the Accountant of the Company i.e.
3 of 13
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059191
CRM-M No.17213 & 17216 of 2024 2024 : PHHC : 059191
Chhittar Mal Saini. The petitioners, in the circumstances, had no
obligation or means to independently verify the accuracy of the data
supplied to them.
6. Learned senior counsel has lastly contended that the
offence(s) under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 stand deleted
and the only offences which now remain in the present case are under
Sections 465 and 468 of the IPC, which are all triable by Magistrate
and carry a maximum punishment of seven years. He has relied upon
various judicial pronouncements of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in
'Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and
another' (2020) 5 SCC 1; 'Mahdoom Bava vs. CBI' 2023 SCC
Online SC 299 and 'Aman Preet Singh vs. CBI through Director'
2021 SCC Online SC 941, and in particular to the settled ratio of law
laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in 'Satender Kumar Antil
vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & another' 2022 LiveLaw (SC)
577 to assert that the petitioners are entitled to the concession of
anticipatory bail as it is a matter of record that they were indeed not
arrested during investigation and had cooperated fully, coupled with the
fact that the case of the prosecution hinges on documentary evidence
which already stands provided by the petitioners to the Investigating
Agency.
7. Learned Spl. Public Prosecutor for the CBI has filed short
reply by way of an affidavit of Insp. Ankush Sharma today in the
Court, which is taken on record subject to all just exceptions. While
4 of 13
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059191
CRM-M No.17213 & 17216 of 2024 2024 : PHHC : 059191
opposing the prayer and submissions made by the learned senior
counsel for the petitioners, he has asserted that the present case
involves a huge financial fraud amounting to `4834.28 lacs, where
funds obtained from the Bank were misappropriated, and hypothecated
stock of the Company was disposed off clandestinely, depriving the
Bank of any means to recover any amount. He has further argued that
though the balance sheets/audit reports were indeed based on the data
provided by the Accountant of the Company and the change in the
category from 'Sundry Creditors' to 'Unsecured Creditors' was also
made by co-accused Chhittar Mal Saini in the software of the Company
upon directions of Harinderjit Singh, however, the petitioners could not
claim immunity; being Chartered Accountants/Auditors, they had a
duty to diligently prepare the reports and should have raised concerns
regarding the data supplied to them by the Company.
8. However, learned Spl. Public Prosecutor for the CBI has
not disputed the contents of its reply filed before the CBI Court to the
effect that the accused petitioners were not arrested during investigation
and had joined investigation as and when called by CBI.
9. Learned Spl. Public Prosecutor for the CBI has also argued
that there is a question mark qua the maintainability of the instant
petitions itself; once bailable warrants had been issued to secure their
presence, the petitioners should first go and surrender and thereafter,
apply for regular bail as anticipatory bail is only for the purpose of
investigation and not trial. In support, reliance has been placed on
5 of 13
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059191
CRM-M No.17213 & 17216 of 2024 2024 : PHHC : 059191
'HDFC Bank Ltd. vs. J.J. Mannan @ John Paul & another' (2010)
1 SCC 679.
10. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has however,
controverted the reliance placed by the learned Spl. Public Prosecutor
for CBI by asserting that the said ratio of law already stands overruled
in the judgment rendered by a five-Judge Bench of Hon'ble the
Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal's case (supra).
11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
relevant material on record.
12. The role of the petitioners stands detailed in the
summoning order dated 09.01.2024 which has been annexed as
Annexure P-3. The relevant extract of the said order is reproduced as
under:
"21. The CBI contends that the key figures in
Audited Balance sheet as on 31.03.2015 and Provisional
Balance sheet as on 30.09.2015 of M/s GAPL submitted to
Bank for takeover of limits, are not matching with Audited
Balance sheet as on 31.03.2015 filed with Income Tax
Department. Further that Audited balance sheet as on
31.03.2015 and Provisional Balance sheet as on
30.09.2015 of M/s GAPL submitted to bank bears stamp of
accused Gagandeep Shingal, CA and that the audited
balance sheet of M/s GAPL as on 31.03.2016 and
31.03.2017 were prepared by Gagandeep Singhal though
signature on the balance sheet is that of V.M.Singhal, CA
having his firm in the name of Anil Sood and Co. where
Gagandeep is also a partner; on the basis of trial balance
6 of 13
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059191
CRM-M No.17213 & 17216 of 2024 2024 : PHHC : 059191
provided to him by Chittar Mal Saini, Accountant of M/s
GAPL in which balances had been shown under the head
"unsecured loans" which are actually "Sundry creditors"
The CBI alleges that the changes in classification of above
entries were done by accused Chhittar Mal Saini in the
computer software of the M/s GAPL on the directions of
Harinderjit Singh and these entries were also checked by
CA, Gagandeep Singhal at the time of audit of accounts.
The CBI contends that though M/s GAPL has shown M/s
Sohan Lal and Mohan Lal under the head 'unsecured loan'
in its audited balance sheet as on 31.03.2017, during
investigation Sh. Vijay Kumar, Partner of M/s Sohan Lal
and Mohan Lal disclosed that his firm has not given any
loan to M/s GAPL and M/s GAPL is Debtor in the accounts
of his firm and Rs.58 Lacs are outstanding against them in
their accounts. The CBI further contends that during
investigation proprietor/ representatives of the firms Sh.
Raj Kumar Proprietor of M/s Ram Kishan Dass Lal Chand,
Gurpreet Singh Accountant in M/s H.S. Trading Co., Sh.
Ravinder Pal Singla, the then proprietor of M/s Punjab
Grain, Sh.Gurpreet Singh, Manager in M/s Meet Trading
Co., Sadig Faridkot, Sh. Krishan Gopal, Partner in M/s
Satpal Industries Faridkot, Sh. Shiv Kumar, Proprietor of
M/s Shiv Kumar and Pardeep Kumar were examined and
they also stated that their firms did not extended any loans
to M/s GAPL instead had supplied materials related to
business and were creditors of the M/s GAPL."
13. Upon a careful examination of the summoning order, it is
evident that as per the case of the CBI itself the balance sheets were
prepared by petitioner Gagandeep Singhal, which bore signatures of
7 of 13
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059191
CRM-M No.17213 & 17216 of 2024 2024 : PHHC : 059191
Varinder Mohan Singhal, based on the trial balance provided by co-
accused Chhittar Mal Saini, Accountant of the Company; the balance
sheets incorrectly categorized the balance under 'Unsecured Loans'
instead of 'Sundry Creditors'. Notably, these classification changes
were executed by the co-accused Chhittar Mal Saini in the computer
software of the Company under the directions of Harinderjit Singh.
Prima facie, the petitioners prepared the balance sheets based on these
entries without knowledge of actual classifications of entries; it would
be pertinent to note that the internal investigation conducted by the
complainant Bank also does not contain any allegations against the
petitioners.
14. Learned Spl. Public Prosecutor for the CBI has opposed the
petitioners' plea primarily on the ground of huge financial fraud
involved in the case; however, while acknowledging the gravity of the
offences, it would be imperative to consider the individual roles and
specific allegations against the petitioners. The denial or grant of bail
cannot be solely based on the magnitude of the offence alleged, other
relevant factors must also be taken into account.
15. Reference can be made to the following parameters set
forth by the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in
Sushila Aggarwal's case (ibid):
"112. The following factors and parameters can be
taken into consideration while dealing with the anticipatory
bail:
8 of 13
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059191
CRM-M No.17213 & 17216 of 2024 2024 : PHHC : 059191
(i) The nature and gravity of the accusation and
the exact role of the accused must be properly
comprehended before arrest is made;
(ii) The antecedents of the applicant including the
fact as to whether the accused has previously
undergone imprisonment on conviction by a
Court in respect of any cognizable offence;
(iii) The possibility of the applicant to flee from
justice;
(iv) The possibility of the accused's likelihood to
repeat similar or the other offences.
(v) Where the accusations have been made only
with the object of injuring or humiliating the
applicant by arresting him or her.
(vi) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail
particularly in cases of large magnitude
affecting a very large number of people.
(vii) The courts must evaluate the entire available
material against the accused very carefully.
The court must also clearly comprehend the
exact role of the accused in the case. The cases
in which accused is implicated with the help
of sections 34 and 149 of the Indian Penal
Code, the court should consider with even
greater care and caution because over
implication in the cases is a matter of common
knowledge and concern;
(viii) While considering the prayer for grant of
anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck
between two factors namely, no prejudice
should be caused to the free, fair and full
9 of 13
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059191
CRM-M No.17213 & 17216 of 2024 2024 : PHHC : 059191
investigation and there should be prevention of
harassment, humiliation and unjustified
detention of the accused;
(ix) The court to consider reasonable apprehension
of tampering of the witness or apprehension of
threat to the complainant;
(x) Frivolity in prosecution should always be
considered and it is only the element of
genuineness that shall have to be considered in
the matter of grant of bail and in the event of
there being some doubt as to the genuineness of
the prosecution, in the normal course of events,
the accused is entitled to an order of bail."
16. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil's
case (supra), has outlined the following requisite conditions for grant
of bail to a person accused of offences punishable with imprisonment
of 07 years or less, not falling in category B and D:-
(1) Not arrested during investigation
(2) Cooperated throughout in the investigation including
appearing before investigating officer whenever
called.
17. It is noteworthy that in the present case also, the custodial
interrogation of the petitioners was admittedly not sought by the
respondent-CBI during investigation as the petitioners had cooperated
fully by joining investigation as and when called for, and by providing
necessary documentation. Therefore, in view of the law laid down in
10 of 13
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059191
CRM-M No.17213 & 17216 of 2024 2024 : PHHC : 059191
Satender Kumar Antil's case (supra), there would be no justification
to incarcerate the petitioners at this stage, especially considering that
they are not involved in any other criminal case.
18. Additionally, since the investigation stands concluded and
final report already stands presented under Section 173(2) of the
Cr.P.C., there can be no apprehension or risk of any tampering with the
evidence. The trial is yet to commence, coupled with the fact that the
entire case of the prosecution hinges on documentary evidence which is
already in possession of the CBI.
19. In similar circumstances, Hon'ble the Supreme Court in
Mahdoom Bava's case (supra), has observed as under:
"9. On the strength of the aforesaid allegations,
which are certainly serious in nature, the prayer of the
appellants for anticipatory bail is opposed vehemently by
the learned Additional Solicitor General. But in our
considered view there are at least three factors which tilt
the balance in favour of the appellants herein. They are:-
(i) Admittedly, the CBI did not require the
custodial interrogation of the appellants during the
period of investigation from 29.06.2019 (date of
filing of FIR) till 31.12.2021 (date of filing of the
final report). Therefore, it is difficult to accept the
contention that at this stage the custody of the
appellants may be required;
(ii) In the reply/counter filed before the High
Court, the CBI had taken a categorical stand that the
Court had merely issued summons and not warrant
for the appearance of the accused. In the case of Shri
11 of 13
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059191
CRM-M No.17213 & 17216 of 2024 2024 : PHHC : 059191
Deepak Gupta, CBI had taken a stand before the
Special Court that "the presence of the accused is not
required for the investigation but it is certainly
required for trial" and that therefore he needs to be
present. Therefore, all that the CBI wanted was the
presence of the accused before the Trial Court to face
trial. In such circumstances, to oppose the
anticipatory bail request at this stage may not be
proper; and
(iii) All transactions out of which the complaint had
arisen, seem to have taken place during the period
2009-2010 to 2012-2013 and all are borne out by
records. When the primary focus is on documentary
evidence, we fail to understand as to why the
appellants should now be arrested.
10. More importantly, the appellants apprehend
arrest, not at the behest of the CBI but at the behest of the
Trial Court. This is for the reason that in some parts of the
country, there seems to be a practice followed by Courts to
remand the accused to custody, the moment they appear in
response to the summoning order. The correctness of such
a practice has to be tested in an appropriate case. Suffice
for the present to note that it is not the CBI which is
seeking their custody, but the appellants apprehend that
they may be remanded to custody by the Trial Court and
this is why they seek protection. We must keep this in mind
while deciding the fate of these appeals."
20. After taking into account the totality of the facts and
circumstances as enumerated hereinabove as well as the ratio of law
12 of 13
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059191
CRM-M No.17213 & 17216 of 2024 2024 : PHHC : 059191
laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in its various judicial
pronouncements, this Court finds merit in the prayer made by the
petitioners for extending the concession of anticipatory bail to them.
21. Accordingly, the present petitions are allowed. The
petitioners are directed to put in appearance before the learned Spl.
Magistrate CBI, Mohali within 07 days from today. On appearance,
they shall be released on bail by the Court concerned subject to the
following conditions:
(i) The petitioners shall furnish personal bonds in
the sum of `50.00 lacs each with two sureties
in the like amount;
(ii) They shall surrender their passports before the
Court concerned.
22. However, it is made clear that anything observed
hereinabove shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on
the merits of the case.
(MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)
JUDGE
April 30, 2024
rps
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
13 of 13
