Punjab-Haryana High Court
Agnishwar Roy Basu vs State Of Haryana on 6 August, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100894
CRM-M-47764-2023 and
CRM-M-19835-2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
209 CRM-M-47764-2023
Date of Decision: 06.08.2024
AGNISHWAR ROY BASU ......Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA .....Respondent
211 CRM-M-19835-2024
RAKENDER SINGH .......Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA ......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURBIR SINGH.
Present: Mr. Abhimanyu Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
(in CRM-M-47764-2023)
Mr. Vinod Ghai, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Arnav Ghai, Advocate and
Mr. Shivam Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
(in CRM-M-19835-2024)
Mr. Rajiv Sidhu, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Aditya Sanghi, Advocate for the complainant.
(in both the petitions)
*****
GURBIR SINGH, J.
1. Vide this common judgment, two petitions i.e. CRM-M-47764-
2023 and CRM-M-19835-2024 shall be disposed of. The said petitions have
been filed for regular bail.
2. Both the petitions filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C for grant of
regular bail to the petitioners in case FIR No. 400 dated 06.10.2022 under
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100894
CRM-M-47764-2023 and
CRM-M-19835-2024
Sections 120-B, 406, 420 IPC (Sections 467, 471 and 411 IPC are added
later on) registered at Police Station Sector-50, District Gurugram. On
Section 468 is also added in CRM-M-19835-2024.
3. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that one firm M/s
Chhatisgarh Education Foundation was being run under the presidentship of
co-accused Vikram Partap Singh and another accused Vikas Attre was its
purchase head and it was engaged in business of supply of electrical goods
to Chhatisgarh government. Vikas Attre projected to the various vendors
that they received purchase orders from various departments of Chhatisgarh
government in the name of M/s Chhatisgarh Education Foundation for
supply of electrical goods. On their assurance, various vendors agreed to
supply fans and electric wires to them at a reasonable rates and Vikas Attre,
being its purchase head, assured to the vendors that the payment will be
made within 45 days of the date of delivery. The post-dated cheques signed
by co-accused Vikram Partap Singh were also handed over to the vendors as
a security. The electric goods supplied by the complainant and other
vendors were received by co-accused Agnishwar Rai, its ware house and
admn. incharge. Thereafter, the accused persons failed to make the payment
and the security cheques were also dishonored and that office of M/s
Chhatisgarh Education Foundation located at Spaze IT Park was also found
lying closed. Then complainant Akhil Sarda lodged complaint in writing
with the police and initially an FIR in this case was registered under
Sections already mentioned above against Vikram Partap Singh, Naresh
Babu, Mukesh Sahu, Vikas Attre, Agnishwar Rai and Krishna Murari
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100894
CRM-M-47764-2023 and
CRM-M-19835-2024
on 06.10.2022.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner appearing on behalf of
Agnishwar Roy Basu has argued that petitioner is in custody since
28.04.2023. He further submits that petitioner was only an employee of the
NGO, Chhattisgarh Education Foundation. Petitioner had never
communicated with the complainants or the firms of the complainants.
Petitioner is not beneficiary. He neither misappropriated any property nor
had in the possession of any product as alleged to have been taken by the
co-accused.
5. Learned State counsel has already filed the reply in
CRM-M-47764-2023 on 31.01.2024. It is argued by learned State counsel
and counsel for the complainant that the goods were supplied by the
complainants and same were received by the petitioner being warehouse
and admin. incharge. Petitioner and co-accused namely Nikhil Raj Singh
disclosed during investigation that they had sold the other articles in
collusion with Ram Dass Sirke. The petitioner had acted in connivance with
other co-accused and thereby induced the victims and had acquired
wrongful gains by way of preparing forged documents for the purpose of
cheating.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-
Rakender Singh in CRM-M-19835-2024 has submitted that petitioner is the
father of co-accused namely Nikhil Raj Singh. He further submits that
Vikram Pratap Singh was arrested and thereafter Nikhil Raj Singh (son of
the petitioner) was arrested. On the basis of their disclosure statements,
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100894
CRM-M-47764-2023 and
CRM-M-19835-2024
petitioner was nominated and arrested on 11.09.2023. The name of the
petitioner was introduced more than one year after the registration of the
present FIR. The petitioner is not anyway associated with the Chhattisgarh
Education Foundation. Nikhil Raj Singh (son of the petitioner) has already
been granted concession of regular bail by the Coordinate Bench of this
Court in CRM-M-35929-2023 on 19.01.2024.
7. Learned State counsel has opposed the bail to the petitioner. It
is submitted that godown in which goods were supplied were hired by the
petitioner.
8. I have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the
petitioner as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the paper
book.
9. It is not the case of the prosecution that petitioners ever
approached the various vendors/complainants and misled them to supply
goods by showing the forged work orders. The post-dated cheques which
are given as security were not bearing the signatures of the petitioners. On
asking, learned State counsel submits that there is no document that godown
was hired by the petitioner-Rakender Singh. Challan has already been
presented. Offences are triable by the Judicial Magistrate. The co-accused
namely Nikhil Raj Singh has already been granted concession of regular
bail.
10. In the light of the above, this Court is of the view that no useful
purpose is going to be served by prolonging the judicial custody of the
petitioners. Consequently, both the petitions are hereby allowed and the
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100894
CRM-M-47764-2023 and
CRM-M-19835-2024
petitioners are directed to be released on regular bail on their furnishing
bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty
Magistrate concerned. The petitioners are directed not to leave the country
without prior permission of the Court concerned and not to pressurize the
prosecution witnesses in any manner.
11. Observations made herein above are not to be construed as
expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
(GURBIR SINGH)
06.08.2024 JUDGE
renu
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
5 of 5
