Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harpreet Singh vs State Of Punjab on 2 August, 2024
Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:099131
CRM-M-34187-2024 -1-
(103)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-34187-2024
Date of decision : 02.08.2024
HARPREET SINGH
... Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Mr. Atul Goyal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Ramta K Chaudhary, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Harnoor Singh Chaddha, Advocate
for the complainant.
****
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.
The prayer in this second petition under Section 438 of
Cr.P.C. is for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR
No.0018 dated 01.03.2024 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections
419, 120-B, 465, 467, 468, 471 and Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of
Information Technology Act, 2000 at Police Station Shimlapuri, District
Ludhiana.
2. Complaint Nos.PGD 38832 and 35391 dated 25.09.2022
were filed by Manjit Kaur wife of Mohan Singh and the same read as
under:-
"A complaint numbered PGD 38832 Complaint No.
35391 dated 25.09.22 by Manjit Kaur wife. Mohan
Singh, Resident of House No: 1511/45, Street No: 8,
1 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:099131
Harkrishna Nagar, New Shimlapuri, Ludhiana Mobile
No: 97797-62276 In 2021, by the accused woman on
stating the people of her neighborhood that a scheme of
giving money has run by Center Govt, by misusing the
applicant's PAN Card No. MGEPK8966K by
registering GST/UIN: 03MGEPK8966K1ZN on the
PAN card regarding running a company by an unknown
person, including investigation report and documents
regarding register a case through post By hand, HC
Harmanjit Singh No: 4028/Ludhi: received at Police
Station, which is as following: "To The, Hon'ble Police
Commissioner, Ludhiana. Subject: Application
regarding that by the accused woman of our
neighborhood in 2021, by stating the people of her
neighborhood that the payment scheme has been run by
the Center Govt. By misusing applicant's PAN Card
No.: MGEPK8966K, by registering GST/UIN:03
MGEPK8966K1ZN on PAN Card by an unknown
person and running a company. Sir, I, the applicant,
requesting as following: 1. That I am a domestic lady.
2. That the accused woman of our locality mentioned
above told all the residents of the locality that the
Center Govt. has run a scheme for housewives in which
they will give 2000 rupees to every woman. But we
villagers believed this woman of our village and gave
her a copy of our PAN card, Aadhaar card and she kept
all the documents of the villagers with her. 3. That now
on the date 04.08.2022 we found out about 60-70
people from all the Mohalla that whoever had given
their documents to that woman misused those and gave
the GST numbers of all the residents of our Mohalla to
someone and had sold and fake companies are running
2 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:099131
on the names of all the villagers. Due to this
misfortunate incident, all the residents of our village
and I also are very afraid that if there may arise any
situation of money debit/credit etc. Therefore, your are
requested that keeping the above facts as the main,
these persons have cheated by telling the scheme of
giving money by Center Govt., so action should be
taken against them and these fake companies should be
banned from our GST numbers. You will be very
obliged. Date: 6-8-2022 Applicant/-Manjit Kaur Wife
S. Mohan Singh."
3. During preliminary investigation, it was revealed that
complainant-Manjit Kaur and many other individuals from her locality
had given photocopies of their PAN Cards and Aadhar Cards to a
woman in lieu of the aforementioned scheme. Subsequently, the
complainant received a recovery notice from the GST Department from
which she came to know that a firm named PC Enterprises (having its
office at Shop No.2552, Gali No.3, Satguru Nagar, Ludhiana) had been
opened using her Aadhar Card and PAN Card.
During review of records procured from the GST
Department regarding the aforementioned firm, PC Enterprises, it was
discovered that the GST application/registration of the said firm was
conducted using mobile phone Nos.88726-14355 and 95922-37734 and
email IDs [email protected] and
[email protected]. Thereupon, the SAF/CAF of the mobile
phone Nos.88726-14355 and 95922-37734 were obtained from the
3 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:099131
service providers. Mobile No.88726-14355 was registered in the name
of Ankit Kasaudhan, resident of Gonda, UP and to activate the aforesaid
number, an OTP was sent to Mobile No.98569-90003 registered in the
name of Sunny, resident of Ludhiana. Mobile No.95922-37734 was
registered in the name of Jangir Singh, resident of Mandi Gobindgarh,
Fatehgarh Sahib. The email ID [email protected] was
created using Mobile No.95922-37734. The other email ID,
[email protected] was operated using mobile No.7009795241
(registered owner Rajesh Kumar), mobile No.7087740849 (registered
owner Anita Devi) and mobile No. 8054673946 (registered owner
Lakhbir Singh).
During the course of the enquiry, a complaint (PGD
No.38820 dated 25/09/2023) from Pritam Singh and another complaint
(PGD No.38823 dated 25/09/2023) from Narinder Singh were received
wherein similar allegations were levelled regarding the taking of their
PAN Cards and Aadhar Cards by a lady. During the preliminary
investigation into the aforesaid complaints, it was found that by using
Aadhar Card and PAN Card of Pritam Singh, a firm named PS
Enterprises (registered office of the said firm as per the record was
Subhash Nagar Extension, New Delhi) was opened and GST registration
was obtained by using Mobile No.7837430336 (registered owner
Raghbir Singh). To register mobile number, Mobile Nos.7837430336,
9041262551 was used (registered owner Lakh Raj). The email ID used
4 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:099131
for GST registration of PS Enterprises was [email protected]
and the said email ID was created using mobile No.9115475073
(registered owner Santhok Singh). While registering phone
No.9115475073, the mobile number used was 7889078837 (registered
owner Vinod Kumar Yadav). As per the CDRs, there were regular
contact calls between 7889078837 (registered owner Vinod Kumar
Yadav), 9115475073 (registered owner Santhok Singh) and 7087740849
(registered owner Anita Devi) establishing that the aforesaid mobile
numbers were used by individuals committing GST fraud.
By using the Aadhar Card and PAN Card of Narinder Singh,
a GST firm named NS Enterprises (Subhash Nagar Extension, New
Delhi) was registered. For GST registration of NS Enterprises, Mobile
No.7837428381 (registered owner Arshdeep Singh) was used. An
alternative mobile number used while activating the said number was
6280534229 (registered owner Amritpal Singh). The email ID used in
the registration of NS Enterprises was [email protected] and
the said email ID was created using Mobile No.9888135837 (registered
owner Santokh Singh). The alternative mobile number was given while
registering the said number was 7889078837 (registered owner Vinod
Kumar Yadav).
Thereupon, on the basis of the preliminary investigation,
the present FIR No.18 dated 01.03.2024 under Sections 419, 420, 406,
467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC and Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the IT
5 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:099131
Act came to be registered wherein the individuals namely, Ankit
Kasodhan, Sunny, Jangir Singh, Rajesh Kumar, Anita Devi, Lakhbir
Singh, Raghbir Singh, Lakh Raj, Santokh Singh, Vinod Kumar Yadav,
Arshdeep Singh and Amritpal Singh were arrayed as accused.
During the course of investigation on 10.04.2024, Sumit
Kumar was implicated as an accused and apprehended. During
questioning, he disclosed that Harpreet Singh @ Bajwa (petitioner) and
Gurmeet Singh @ Ricky (bail dismissed vide order dated 22.05.2024
passed in CRM-M-24805-2024) were frequent visitors to Harpal Singh
(accused) who was one of the masterminds. It was further revealed that
Harpreet Singh orchestrated the creation and misuse of several business
entities (firms having GST registration), notably REEN Enterprises,
friend Enterprises, Sahdev Enterprises, Raj Rani Traders Mohindra
Enterprises, JK Traders, PV Traders, Super Enterprises, Sitam
Enterprises, Amrik Enterprises among others, utilizing identities of
unsuspecting individuals for creation of the firms and thereupon by
handing over the said firms to Harpal Singh (Accused). Gurmeet Singh
also contributed similarly by providing firms like MS Trading Company
and JJ Iron and Scrap Store to Harpal Singh. The modus operandi
disclosed that the aforesaid firms were employed by Harpal Singh to
generate fraudulent tax invoices. This scheme was designed to facilitate
bogus claims for Input Tax Credit from the GST department, thus
executing a financial fraud against the state. Further, it was disclosed
6 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:099131
that the individual namely Harpreet Singh, using his influence derived
from his father being the Sarpanch, along with Gurmeet Singh provided
assurances of protection and support to Harpal Singh, facilitating his
engagement in unlawful enterprises.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. His name does
not find mentioned in the FIR but he has been nominated as an accused
on the basis of disclosure statement of his co-accused Sumit Kumar.
Though, the instant anticipatory petition was the second one, the first
one having been withdrawn on 22.05.2024, this petition had been filed
as Harpal Singh the main accused had executed an affidavit in favour of
the petitioner exonerating him of any illegal activity. As the petitioner
was ready and willing to join investigation, he was entitled to the
concession of anticipatory bail.
5. An affidavit dated 31.07.2024 by way of an affidavit of
Kuldeep Singh, IPS, Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana has been filed
on behalf of the State by the learned counsel for the State. The same is
taken on record. While referring to the said reply, he contends that the
petitioner along with one Gurmeet Singh @ Ricky had orchestrated the
creation and misuse of several business entities by using identities of
unsuspecting individuals for creation of firms with a view to generate
fraudulent tax invoices to claim input tax credit from the GST
Department thereby executing a financial fraud against the State. The
7 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:099131
petitioner was providing fictitious firms, assurances of protection and
support to Harpal Singh facilitating his engagement in unlawful
enterprises. The Investigating Agency was working to unravel the
complex network of numerous firms and individuals entangled in the
racket for which the custodial interrogation of the petitioner was
certainly required. The first bail application of the petitioner had been
argued at length and when this Court was not inclined to grant bail to
him, the said petition was withdrawn on 22.05.2024. An affidavit given
by a co-accused exonerating the petitioner and the compromise
purportedly effected with the complainant would not amount to change
in circumstances entitling the petitioner to file the instant second
anticipatory bail petition as in the instant case, the Government has been
defrauded and the complainant only set the law into motion. Therefore,
the petitioner was not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumitha
Pradeep Vs. Arun Kumar C.K. & Anr. 2022 Live Law (SC) 870 held
that merely because custodial interrogation was not required by itself
could not be a ground to grant anticipatory bail. The first and the
foremost thing the Court hearing the anticipatory bail application is to
consider is the prima facie case against the accused. The relevant extract
of the judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-
8 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:099131
"It may be true, as pointed out by learned counsel
appearing for Respondent No.1, that charge-sheet has
already been filed. It will be unfair to presume on our part
that the Investigating Officer does not require Respondent
No.1 for custodial interrogation for the purpose of further
investigation.
Be that as it may, even assuming it a case where
Respondent No.1 is not required for custodial interrogation,
we are satisfied that the High Court ought not to have
granted discretionary relief of anticipatory bail.
We are dealing with a matter wherein the original
complainant (appellant herein) has come before this
Court praying that the anticipatory bail granted by the
High Court to the accused should be cancelled. To put it in
other words, the complainant says that the High Court
wrongly exercised its discretion while granting anticipatory
bail to the accused in a very serious crime like POCSO and,
therefore, the order passed by the High Court granting
anticipatory bail to the accused should be quashed and set
aside. In many anticipatory bail matters, we have noticed
one common argument being canvassed that no custodial
interrogation is required and, therefore, anticipatory bail
may be granted. There appears to be a serious
misconception of law that if no case for custodial
interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that
alone would be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail.
Custodial interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects
to be considered along with other grounds while deciding
an application seeking anticipatory bail. There may be
many cases in which the custodial interrogation of the
accused may not be required, but that does not mean that
the prima facie case against the accused should be
9 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:099131
ignored or overlooked and he should be granted
anticipatory bail. The first and foremost thing that the
court hearing an anticipatory bail application should
consider is the prima facie case put up against the
accused. Thereafter, the nature of the offence should be
looked into along with the severity of the punishment.
Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to
decline custodial interrogation. However, even if custodial
interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself,
cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail.
8. A perusal of the evidence collected so far would point
towards the fact that not only did the petitioner along with Gurmeet
Singh @ Ricky create and misuse several business entities and handover
the same to Harpal Singh to avail fraudulent input tax credit but the
petitioner provided assurances of protection and support to the said
Harpal Singh further facilitating engagement in unlawful enterprises.
The financial fraud committed by the petitioner was on multiple levels.
Initially, the fraud involved in the misappropriation of individuals
identities by the accused (by getting the Aadhar Cards and PAN Cards of
unsuspecting individuals on a false pretext) which facilitated the
creation of various fictitious firms. These firms were then used as
vehicles for the issuance of counterfeit tax invoices. The second facet of
the fraudulent activity involved the exploitation of the aforementioned
firms to orchestrate bogus claims for ITC, thereby perpetrating a
significant financial fraud against the State exchequer. Therefore, the
offence stands prima facie established against the petitioner and his co-
10 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:099131
accused. Merely because a co-accused Harpal Singh had furnished an
affidavit exonerating the petitioner and the complainant did not have any
objection to the grant of bail to the petitioner would not amount to
change in circumstances entitling the petitioner to the grant of
anticipatory bail in view of the material collected against the petitioner
thus far of having facilitated a fraud upon the GST Department. Further,
the co-accused of the petitioner namely Gurmeet Singh alias Ricky is
still absconding despite his anticipatory bail having been rejected. Even
otherwise, because of the complex nature of the investigation, the
custodial interrogation of the petitioner is certainly necessary to take the
investigation to the logical conclusion.
9. In view of the aforementioned discussion, I find no merit in
the present petition. Therefore, the same stands dismissed.
10. However, the observations made hereinabove are only for
the purposes of deciding this bail petition and the Trial Court is free to
adjudicate upon the matter on the basis of the evidence led before it
uninfluenced by any such observations made herein.
(JASJIT SINGH BEDI)
JUDGE
02.08.2024
JITESH
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
11 of 11
