Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurdeep Singh vs State Of Haryana on 2 September, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:116613
CRM-M-41547-2024 and
CRM-M-42247-2024 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
289+290
Date of decision: 2nd September, 2024
1. CRM-M-41547-2024
Suman Puri
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
1. CRM-M-42247-2024
Gurdeep Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present: Mr. Amandeep Saini, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana.
***
MANISHA BATRA, J (ORAL):-
This common order shall dispose of the aforementioned two
petitions which are the second petitions for grant of pre-arrest bail as filed by
the petitioners Suman Puri and Gurdeep Singh respectively, seeking benefit
of pre-arrest bail in case arising out of FIR No. 118 dated 07.05.2024
registered under Sections 406, 420 and 506 of IPC, 1860 at Police Station
Safidon, District Jind.
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:116613
CRM-M-41547-2024 and
2. Relevant facts in brief are that the aforementioned FIR was
registered on the basis of a written complaint filed by complainant Ranbir
Singh on 16.10.2023 alleging therein that his son Pradhyuman Rana and
son-in-law Nikhil Rana were interested to go abroad. On being told by some
acquaintance that the petitioners were involved in the business of sending
people abroad, the complaint contacted the petitioner in July, 2023, who
called him in her office running under the name of "Kelly Immigration" and
was situated at Mohali. The complainant along with his son-in-law visited
there. The petitioner No.1 Suman assured to send his son and son-in-law
abroad on spending an amount of Rs. 36 lakhs. She also introduced the
complainant and his son-in-law etc. to the petitioner No.2 Gurdeep Singh.
On asking of the petitioners, Nikhil Rana son-in-law of complainant had
initially transferred an amount of Rs. 36,000/- in the account of the accused
through Gpay on 18.07.2023. The accused had represented that initially
tourist visa would be arranged for them and subsequently, the same would be
made as permanent. The complainant alleged that on 18.08.2023, the
petitioners sent through their phone, a copy of visa for Australia for one year
in the name of son and son-in-law of the complainant. The petitioners then
asked the complainant to send an amount of Rs. 50,000/- through Gpay
which was so sent. On 24.08.2023, an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- was taken in
cash and they told the complainant that his son and his son-in-law were to
fly on 01.09.2023 for Australia. On 31.08.2023, the petitioners demanded a
sum of Rs. 18,00,000/- from the complainant. Petitioners sent two of their
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:116613
CRM-M-41547-2024 and
men with the complainant to his house and the complainant gave them cash
amount of Rs. 18,00,000/-. The petitioner told the son and son-in-law of the
complainant to reach Delhi Airport on the night of 31.08.2023 itself as they
had to catch a morning flight. On reaching Delhi Airport, the petitioner No.2
Gurdeep Singh again took an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- in cash from the
complainant on the pretext that the same was to be exchanged in dollars.
Thereafter, the petitioner No.2 left the son and son-in-law of the complainant
as well as himself at terminal No.3 of International Airport and did not come
back. The complainant and his son etc. waited for him till 4:00 PM but he
switched off his phone and stopped contacting them. The complainant
alleged that the petitioners had cheated him for a sum of Rs. 21,86,000/- in
toto by promising to send his son and son-in-law abroad and now they were
threatening to kill him. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings
have been initiated and the same are under way. Apprehending their arrest,
both the petitioners had moved a joint application for grant of anticipatory
bail which was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jind vide
order dated 16.05.2024.
3. Thereafter, the petitioner Suman Puri had filed petition CRM-
M-No.-26341-2024, whereas the petitioner Gurdeep Singh had filed petition
CRM-M-No.-26687-2024 before this Court making prayer for grant of
anticipatory bail. Both these petitions were dismissed by a common order
dated 25.07.2024.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner-Suman Puri
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:116613
CRM-M-41547-2024 and
that the second petition for grant of pre-arrest bail is very much maintainable
as in the previous petition, she had taken a categoric plea that she was ready
to pay an amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- to the complainant in lieu of the amount
of cheque of Rs. 20,00,000/- which stood dishonoured. She was ready to pay
that amount while filing her previous petition and even as on date but while
passing the order dated 25.07.2024, the said fact had not been taken into
consideration and this fact amounts to substantial change in circumstances.
Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner-Suman Puri does not have any
criminal antecedent and she is ready to give an amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- by
way of cheque or demand draft, she deserves to be extended benefit of pre-
arrest bail. She is ready to abide by the conditions as imposed by this Court
and is ready to join the investigation as and when required. Therefore, it is
urged that the petition filed by her deserves to be allowed. To fortify his
arguments, learned counsel has relied upon a judgment given by Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court Bhisham Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 2024(3) RCR
(Criminal) 65.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Gurdeep Singh has submitted
that only a sum of Rs. 9,00,000/- was proved to have been withdrawn by the
complainant from his bank account and there is nothing on record to show
that the said amount had been given to the present petitioner. Rather eight
days after 31.08.2023, an amount of Rs. 29,00,000/- has been deposited in
the bank account of the complainant which shows that the transactions were
given a colour to implicate him falsely in this case. It is submitted that since
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:116613
CRM-M-41547-2024 and
this fact had not been taken into consideration at the time of the passing of
order dated 25.07.2024, therefore, the petition filed by him deserves to be
allowed. It is also submitted that petitioner-Gurdeep Singh is also ready to
join the investigation and his custodial interrogation is not required.
6. Status report has been filed by learned State counsel in CRM-
M-41547-2024 and he submits that this report be treated as status report of
CRM-M-42247-2024 also. It is argued that the previous petitions filed by
the petitioners had been dismissed by taking into consideration all the pleas
of petitioners and by passing a detailed order. No such change in
circumstances had occurred which entitled the petitioners to file these
petitions. While stressing that the petitions are not maintainable, it is urged
that the same are liable to be dismissed.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners at considerable
length and have gone through the record carefully.
8. The present petitions have been filed by the petitioners within
two months from the date of dismissal of the previous petitions for grant of
pre-arrest bail by this Court. So far as the question of maintainability of the
present petitions being the second ones is concerned, the position of law in
this regard has been discussed in citation relied upon by the petitioner. The
principle of law as culled out from the same is that though second/successive
anticipatory bail is maintainable, and cannot be rejected only on the ground
of maintainability thereof but for such petition to succeed, the petitioner
must show some substantial change in the circumstances/fact situation and it
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:116613
CRM-M-41547-2024 and
would not be sufficient to show a mere superficial or ostensible change.
There must be some change in the fact situation or in law requiring the
earlier view to be interfered with. Considering the fact of the present case in
view of the above discussed position of law with regard to the
maintainability of the second petition for grant of anticipatory bail, the only
ground which has been pressed into service by the petitioner Suman Puri is
that she is ready to give an amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- to the complainant,
whereas the plea that has been taken place by the petitioner- Gurdeep Singh
is that since withdrawal of an amount of Rs. 9,00,000/- only has been shown
to be made from the bank account of the complainant and as some
substantial amount was deposited in his account after lodging of FIR,
therefore, the story that he had given an amount of Rs. 21,86,000/- to the
petitioners is concocted one. In my considered opinion, the circumstances as
narrated by both the petitioners do not amount to some specious and
substantial change in the fact situation. The allegations against the petitioner
are that in connivance with each other, they had induced the complainant
and his family members to part with huge amount of money on the pretext of
sending the son and son-in-law of the complainant abroad. They gave fake
and fabricated documents in the shape of VISA, tickets, Hotel booking etc to
the victims. Their previous petitions for grant of anticipatory bail have been
dismissed by discussing all the pleas as taken by them, in detail. In G.R.
Ananda Babu Vs. State of Tamilnadu and another, 2021 (1) RCR
(Criminal) 843, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that successive
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:116613
CRM-M-41547-2024 and
anticipatory bail applications should not be entertained, once the previous
application is rejected by speaking order and that too by same Judge. As no
such new ground has been made out on the basis of which, it can be
contemplated that the petitioners have become entitled to grant of pre-arrest
bail, hence, I am of the considered opinion that the second petitions for grant
of pre-arrest bail as moved by the petitioners are not maintainable.
Accordingly, the same are dismissed.
9. Since the main petitions have been dismissed, pending
application, if any, is rendered infructuous.
10. Photocopy of this order be placed on the files of connected
cases.
[MANISHA BATRA]
JUDGE
2nd September, 2024
Parveen Sharma 1. Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No
2. Whether reportable : Yes / No
7 of 7
