Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mohit Mawal vs State Of Punjab on 20 September, 2024
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
CRM-M-32278-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-32278-2024
Reserved on: 06.09.2024
Pronounced on: 20.09.2024
Mohit Mawal @ Mohit Muwal ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. Gaurav Partap S. Pathania, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sukhdev Singh, A.A.G., Punjab.
Mr. Rahul Garg, Advocate
for the complainant.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR Dated Police Station Sections
No.
0067 22.04.2024 Garhshankar, 419/420 IPC, 66 (C)/66(D) of Information
District Technology Act, 2000 (Sections
Hoshiarpur 465/467/471 IPC, 1860 added later on
vide DDR No.21 dated 15.06.2024)
1. The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up before this
Court under Section 439 CrPC, 1973, seeking regular bail.
2. In paragraph 18 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal
antecedents.
3. Facts of the case are being taken from status report dated 09.08.2024 which reads
as under:
"2. That present FIR No.67, dated 22.04.2024, U/s
419, 420 IPC and U/s 66(C) & 66(D) of the Information
Technology Act, 2000 (Sections 465, 467, 471 IPC were
added later on vide DDR No.21, dated 15.06.2024), Police
Station Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur was registered
on the statement of Dr. Raghbir Singh working in Punjab
State Health Department as Senior Medical officer at PHC
Possi, Tehsil Garhshankar,
District Hoshiarpur. That on 19.04.2024 at about 1:39
PM, Dr. Raghbir Singh received a telephonic call from
mobile No.92326-72445 and the person calling from said
mobile number claimed himself to be Custom Officer
authenticity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-32278-2024
working at IGI Airport, New Delhi and stated. that there is
parcel under investigation and the said parcel is booked
under name of Dr. Raghbir Singh and his Aadhar Card is
attached with the same. He further stated that in the said
parcel there are 16 passports, 56/57 ATM cards and some
quantity of drugs and for this illegal act, case has been
registered against him in Basant Kunj Police Station, New
Delhi. Later he transferred the call to Sunil Kumar who
declared him as Head Constable of Basant Kunj Police
Station, New Delhi Mobile No.84699-63836 and he stated
that a criminal case has been registered against Dr.
Raghbir Singh in Basant Kunj Police Station, New Delhi
under the relevant provisions Money Laundering Act &
Human Trafficking Act and further the matter is pending
before CBI for investigation and the same is under the
investigation of Anil Yadav, Chief Investigator of CBI
(Name & designation as disclosed by him), Mobile
No.79970-87395. All of them made What's App calls and
threaten Dr. Raghbir Singh that the matter is pending
before them and arrest warrants of complainant have been
issued by the court and the Dr. Raghbir Singh/complainant
will be got arrested son in non-bailable offences. Then,
they convince Dr. 436 Raghbir Singh to disclose the last
four digits of his entire bank accounts and then, Dr.
Raghbir Singh was in utter shock & surprise within some
time disclosed the last four digits of his all accounts. Later
on they further stated that the entire property will be seized
by CBI department and he will be arrested soon, but, if the
Dr. Raghbir Singh transfers his all moveable assets lying
in his bank accounts in that case his arrest could be
delayed for sometime and the money lying the accounts
will be refunded back alongwith interest after the closure
of investigation. Thereafter, they provided Dr. Raghbir
Singh Accounts Punjab National Bank,
No.2647005500000023 of Punjab National Bank, Branch
Japla (IFSC Code PUNB0264700) and
00000042689753719 of State Bank of India, Branch
Fatehabad (IFSC Code SBIN0001156) and claimed that
the said accounts are associated with Reserve Bank of
India and payment can be made in these accounts. Dr.
Raghbir Singh was not feeling well and he was out of his
mind for believing the version of the accused made the
transaction of Rs.49,00,000/-, the details of which is
hereunder: 1) Payment of Rs.35,00,000/- debited from the
account No.50100323263040 of HDFC Bank Ltd., VPO
Moranwali, Tehsil Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur,
Punjab-144527, through RTGS vide cheque No.000033,
dated 20.04.2024, bearing UTR
No.HDFCR52024042099933647, in favour of account
No.2647005500000023 of Punjab National Bank, Branch
Japla (IFSC Code PUNB0264700), Payment Rs.2,00,000/-
debited from the of account No.65120100007583 of Bank
of Baroda, Branch Garhshankar, Tehsil Garhshankar,
District Hoshiarpur, Punjab, through NEFT dated
20.04.2024 bearing UTR No. BARBZ24111566315, in
favour of 0000002689753719 of State Bank of India
Branch Fatehabad (IFSC Code SBIN0001156), 3)
Payment of Rs.12,00,000/- debited from the account
No.50100323263040 of HDFC Bank Ltd., VPO
Moranwali, Tehsil Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur,
authenticity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-32278-2024
Punjab-144527, through RTGS vide cheque No.000034,
dated 20.04.2024, bearing UTR
No.HDFCR52024042050090921, in favour of account
No.2647005500000023 of Punjab National Bank, Branch
Japla (IFSC Code No.PUNB0264700), Dr. Raghbir Singh
made the abovesaid payments keeping in view that the
same are made in the accounts of RBI, New Delhi, but,
later in the evening on the same day, when Dr. Raghbir
Singh discussed with matter with family, then, came to
know that the above mentioned scammers hatched a
criminal conspiracy against Dr. Raghbir Singh/
complainant and they have deceived Dr. Raghbir Singh.
The scammers fraudulently & dishonestly induced Dr.
Raghbir Singh to transfer the abovesaid amount in the said
accounts intentionally and have caused financial & more
damaged to Dr. Raghbir Singh."
4. The petitioner's counsel argued that from the persual of the record it would reveal
that neither the petitioner was named in the FIR nor any overt act was attributed to him.
He further submits that though the FIR was initially registered against the unknown
persons, the Investigating Agency in an attempt to magnify the number of accused have
nominated other persons as accused including the present petitioner on the disclosure
statement of co-accused namely Dhruv Mahajan. He further contends that the main
allegation against the petitioner is that he had transferred an amount of Rs.5.00 lacs in the
accounts of co-accused Dhruv Mahajan, Sahil and Mahip wherein, it has also been
alleged that the same amount pertains to the money transferred by the complainant Dr.
Raghbir in the various accounts as mentioned in the FIR and in order to corroborate the
same, copy of Bank Statement produced which shows that the petitioner at any point of
time neither received any amount which is alleged to be pertained to the complainant nor
had he transferred any amount in the accounts of the aforesaid persons.
5. The petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and
contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the
petitioner and their family.
6. The State opposes bail and has referred to paras 3 and 4 of the status report, which
read as follows:
"3. That during the investigation of present FIR, the
fact has come into light that present petitioner is part of a
gang, which was operating to defraud the people. The
complainant was even sent forged arrest warrant and said
seizure order which was allegedly issued by Court of Ld.
JMIC, Delhi and name of complainant and Adhaar Card
Number of the complainant was mentioned and seal of the
Court was also affixed in forged & fabricated seizure order
and on the basis of said forged & fabricated documents
forced complainant to transfer an amount of Rs.49 Lakhs in
order to save himself and thus, complainant was duped by
amount of Rs.49 Lakhs. The said amount of Rs.49 Lakhs
authenticity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-32278-2024
was transferred in following manner into bank accounts
provided by accused gang:-
Sr AMOUNT TRANSFER BY AMOUNT TRANSFER TO
No COMPLAINANT FROM ACCOUNT NO. PROVIDED BY
ACCOUNT NO. GANG OF PETITIONER
1 Rs.35 Lakhs debited from Account No. 2647005500000023
Account of complainant bearing of Punjab through National Bank.
No.50100323263040 HDFC Branch Japla dated (IFSC Code
Bank Ltd., RTGS vide PUNB0264700)
No.000033. 20.04.2024 cheque
dated 20.04.2024
2 Rs.12 Lakhs debited account of Account No. 00000042689753719
complainant bearing No. State of India. Branch Fatehabad
65120100007583 of Bank of (IFSC Code SBIN0001156)
Baroda, Branch Garhshankar.
(Hoshiarpur) Punjab, through
NEFT dated 20.04.2024
3 Rs.2 Lakhs debited from Account Account No.2647005500000023 of
of complainant bearing Punjab National Bank, Branch
No.50100323263040 of HDFC Japla (IFSC Code
Bank Ltd., VPO Moranwali. No.PUNB0264700)
Tehsil Garhshankar,
(Hoshiarpur) through RTGS vide
cheque No.000034, dated
20.04.2024
4. ROLE OF THE PETITIONER:
That the petitioner was nominated in the
present case on the basis of confession
statement of accused Dhruv Mahajan. The
petitioner got transferred Rs.5,00,000/-
through RTGS in the account
No.50100496706345 of accused Dhruv
Mahajan. The petitioner got available
account of his elder brother Sahil and his
other friend Mahip and the accused
Sukhdeep Singh got transferred Rs.20/22
Lacs in the said accounts and he
transferred said amount into the account
disclosed by the accused Sukhdeep Singh
and he asked the persons of whom account
numbers were used for getting transferred
money to keep Rs.5000/- each out of the
amount transferred into their account.
Rs.7,04,000/- was recovered from the
petitioner and the petitioner is active
member of gang involved in duping
citizens through online fraud."
7. The petitioner took advantage of the breaches, vulnerabilities, and weaknesses in
the system that the Executive has put in place. Further, the lack of enforcement and
authenticity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-32278-2024
absence of meritocracy boldened the petitioner and the gang members to dupe the simple
and gullible people.
8. A perusal of the bail petition and the documents attached primafacie points
towards the petitioner's involvement and does not make out a case for bail.
9. Given the above, the petitioner is not entitled to bail. Any further discussions will
likely prejudice the petitioner; this court refrains from doing so.
10. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the
case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.
11. Petition dismissed. All pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
20.09.2024
Jyoti Sharma
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: No.
authenticity of this order/judgment
