Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shivam Gupta vs State Of Haryana on 24 September, 2024
CRM-M-30748-2024 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Sr. No.207
Case No. : CRM-M-30748-2024 (O&M)
Decided On : September 24, 2024
Shivam Gupta .... Petitioner
vs.
State of Haryana .... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURBIR SINGH.
* * *
Present : Mr. Hitesh Chopra, Advocate
with Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate
(through video conferencing)
for the petitioner.
Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG, Haryana.
Ms. Gunjan, Complainant in person.
* * *
GURBIR SINGH, J. :
1. CRM-31230-2024 : This is application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
for placing on record documents Annexures P-4 to P-7. For the reasons
mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and Annexures P-4 to P-7
are ordered to be taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Main Case : Prayer in the present petition is for grant of
anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.171 dated 27.08.2023,
under Sections 120-B, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, registered at Police
Station New Colony, District Gurugram (Annexure P-1).
3. On the last date of hearing i.e. 08.08.2024, the matter was referred
CRM-M-30748-2024 (O&M) -2-
to Mediation and Conciliation Center of this Court as the petitioner was
ready to settle the matter with the complainant.
4. The report dated 17.09.2024 from the concerned Mediator has
been received, wherein it has been stated that the complainant was present
for mediation only on one date i.e. 14.08.2024 but the petitioner was not
present. On the next three dates, petitioner was present but the complainant
did not turn up. So, mediation between the parties could not take place as
both the parties never appeared together before the Mediator and the case
remained a 'non-starter'.
5. The FIR in question was registered on the basis of written
application submitted by the complainant namely Gunjan, reporting a bank
fraud with her. She submitted that she was lodged in jail from 20.06.2021 to
02.02.2023. Despite this, on 07.07.2021, two ATM cards were issued from
her bank account and also from the bank account of her husband, who had
passed away on 16.06.2021. After her husband's death, all her documents
were at her house, keys whereof were with parents of her husband. The fraud
involved transactions from both her phones (lying in police custody) and
also from the phone of her husband, which was in custody of her father-in-
law. Her 'fixed deposit' was also encashed using her netbanking and money
was withdrawn from her account, meaning thereby that even the bank
officials would have been involved in the fraud and forging of documents.
An amount of Rs.2,43,534/- was withdrawn from one account and
Rs.12,43,000/- from another apart from taking loan of Rs.1,50,000/- from
CRM-M-30748-2024 (O&M) -3-
Bajaj Finance. On the basis of all these allegations, FIR in question was
registered.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is
not named in the FIR and has been nominated in this case subsequently. As
per the bank records, an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- has been transferred from
the complainant's account and Rs.2,61,000/- has been transferred from her
late husband's account in the account of the petitioner. In fact, the petitioner
was only helping a relative of the complainant, who had approached him
saying that he required urgent cash for the treatment of complainant's
husband as her bank account was not working for technical reason. So, the
complainant's relative transferred amounts to the petitioner's account and
immediate cash was collected from the petitioner. The bank statement of the
petitioner has been annexed with the petition as Annexure P-3. The
petitioner is not beneficiary as it was COVID time and the petitioner was
only helping those in need and was unaware about the actual situation about
the complainant. He never used even a single penny for his own benefit,
rather, handed over the entire amount to the complainant's relative.
7. On the other hand, learned State counsel has submitted that the
petitioner has been named as a person to whom the amount was paid after
transferring the same from the account of the complainant and her late
husband. When the petitioner was dealing in money transaction, he was
required to check identity proof of the persons involved. The story put forth
by the petitioner is an after-thought. So, custodial interrogation of the
CRM-M-30748-2024 (O&M) -4-
petitioner is required to ascertain the modus operandi adopted by the
petitioner in committing the fraud.
8. I have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner
and learned State counsel and have also gone through the case file.
9. From the documentary evidence, it is established that the
transactions had been conducted from the bank account of the complainant
when she was in jail and also from the account of her husband, who had
already expired and part of the amount was credited in the SBI Account,
maintained by the petitioner. So, he seems to be the main beneficiary.
10. The online theft of amounts from accounts of general public is
taking place daily. Such like crimes should be thoroughly investigated. It is
not a case where concession of anticipatory bail should be granted to the
petitioner. In the case of Pratibha Manchanda and another vs. State of
Haryana and another reported as 2023 (3) RCR (Criminal) 511, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that while considering the applications
for anticipatory bail, the Courts should consider factors such as nature and
gravity of offence, role attributed to the petitioner and specific facts of the
case. Moreover, when a person is equipped with a favourable order of
anticipatory bail, the interrogation becomes a mere ritual.
11. In view of the peculiar circumstances, as noticed in the preceding
paragraphs, I do not find any ground to grant concession of anticipatory bail
to the petitioner. Therefore, the present petition is hereby dismissed being
devoid of any merit.
CRM-M-30748-2024 (O&M) -5-
12. However, nothing observed herein above shall be construed to be
an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The observations
recorded above are only for the purpose of deciding the present bail petition.
13. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of along with
this judgment.
September 24, 2024 (GURBIR SINGH)
monika JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned ? Yes/No.
Whether reportable ? Yes/No.
