Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shashikant Aravind Mule vs State Of Punjab on 19 March, 2025
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
CRM-M-54903-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-54903-2024
Reserved on: 06.03.2025
Pronounced on: 19.03.2025
Shashikant Aravind Mule ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. A.D.S.Jattana, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sukhdev Singh, AAG, Punjab.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections
14 15.09.2024 Cyber Crime, 318(4), 336(3), 340(2), 61(1) of BNS,
2023 and 66 of the Information
Rupnagar
Technology Act, 2000
1. The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above has come up before
this Court under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS],
seeking anticipatory bail.
2. The petitioner has not disclosed criminal antecedents; however, the representing
counsel states on instructions that the accused has no criminal antecedents.
3. The facts and allegations are being taken from the status report filed by the State,
which reads as follows:
"2. That in compliance thereto, it is respectfully submitted
that the factual matrix pertaining to present case is that,
complaints dated 29.07.2024 and 31.07.2024, were received at
Police Station Cyber Crimes, Rupnagar, through National
Cybercrime Reporting Portal (NCRP-1930). The complaints were
moved by complainant-Hem Raj son of late Nand Lal, resident of
H.No.1280, near Rama Mandir, Rupnagar, wherein it was
averred by him that he had received several calls from the
company named Mind Stay and they told him about the money
investment plans and that they will give him proportionate share
of profit every month for the invested mount in the company. It
was further averred by the complainant-Hem Raj in his
complaints that the company employees had assured him that they
would give bank guarantee of Bank of India, to him and
accordingly, relying upon the assurance of the employees of the
company, complainant-Hem Raj invested Rs.10,000,00/- on
17.05.2024, Rs.5,000,00/-on 17.06.2024 and Rs.5,000,00/- on
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
CRM-M-54903-2024
04.07.2024 in the company. It was further averred by the
complainant-Hem Raj in his complaints that Bank Guarantee
purportedly issued by Bank of India branch Fatiyapur, handed
over to him by the company, was verified by him from Bank of
India Branch Rupnagar, however, on verification, it was found to
be forged and fabricated. The complainant-Hem Raj requested to
take action against the company.
3. That it is respectfully submitted that the aforementioned
complaints moved by the complainant-Hem Raj were thoroughly
inquired by Inquiry Officer of Cyber Crimes Police Station,
Rupnagar, and during inquiry it was revealed that the
complainant-Hem Raj had received a message on his whatsapp
Number 9988XXXXX in 27.02.2024 from whatsapp Number
+919900XXXXX and the complainant was prompted to invest in
the Mindstay Assets Management Pvt. Ltd. #1856/15, 20th Cross,
21st Main Road Vijayanagar, Bangalore And the investor will get
3 to 4 percent return / profit per month. The complainant-Hem
Raj was also sent PAN Card and Registration Certificate of the
company on his whatsapp number on different dates.
4. Thereafter the link of whatsapp group was sent to the
complainant and after the complainant-Hem Raj clicked the
same, he joined the group of the company, which had 700
members. It was further revealed that in this whatsapp group the
account No.50200054937734 of HDFC bank, IFSC Code
HDFC0000075 was sent and complainant-Hem Raj transferred
the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- in the said account. It is further
revealed during inquiry that the complainant-Hem Raj received
soft copy of Bank Guarantee of Rs.10,00,000/-purportedly issued
by Bank of India, through whatsapp No.+919945XXXXX and
from the email of the company and through speed from the
company forwarded by Chinmoy, the Senior Officer of the
company and whatsapp number of Chinmoy was also revealed as
+918240XXXXXX. It is further revealed during inquiry that
complainant-Hem Raj received Rs.29,333/- in his HDFC account
from the ICICI Bank account No.233405500344 and when
complainant got assured that he had received handsome amount
of profit of his Rs.10,00,000/-invested, then complainant-Hem Raj
invested Rs.5,00,000/- more on 17.06.2024, and Rs.5,00,000/- on
04.07.2024 in the account No.50200054937734 of HDFC bank
belonging to company and complainant-Hem Raj received papers
of Bank Guarantee of Rs. 10,00,000/- and on 01.07.2024,
complainant-Hem Raj received Rs.6,000/- in his HDFC Bank
account from the ICICI Bank account No.233405500344,
whereas, Rs.46,000/- was required to be sent to the complainant
being profit.
5. It was further revealed during inquiry that when
complainant-Hem Raj asked for his remaining amount of
Rs.40,000/- being profit of that month, then he was removed from
the whatsapp group. It is further transpired that the Bank
Guarantee bearing No.BOI15794/1926 dated 09.05.2024 and
BOI17375/2107 dated 12.07.2024 for Rs. 10,00,000/- each were
never issued by the Bank of India branch Fatiyapur, District
Hardoi, (Uttar Pradesh) and the same was forged and fabricated.
6. That during further inquiry it was revealed that
Petitioner-Shashikant Aravind Mule, Gadekar Sravanthi and
Bhaganna Mahadea Fulari Krishna Fulari were directors of the
company, Raghunath Raddy and Pardeep were CEO of the
company and Chinmoy and Sumit Ghosh were agent in the
company. It was further revealed that all the aforementioned
2025.03.19 17:26 accused had hatched a conspiracy and got registered Mindstay
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
CRM-M-54903-2024
Assets Management Private Limited and started asking the 3
general public to invest amount in their company on the pretext of
giving higher monthly rate of interest. It was further revealed
during inquiry that the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- deposited by the
complainant in HDFC Bank Account No.50200054937734 was
further transferred to ICICI Bank Account No.233405500344. It
is further submitted that Notices under Section 94 of BNSS were
sent upon the Petitioner-Shashikant Aravind Mule and others,
however, they failed to join the investigation, therefore, the
Inquiry Officer concluded that accused have duped the
complainant-Hem Raj by sending initial amount of Rs.29,333/- by
showing profit / interest of Rs.10,00,000/- of a month and by
sending forged Bank Guarantee of Rs.10,00,000/- to the
complainant, the accused induced the complainant-Hem Raj to
invest more amount in the company and thereafter complainant-
Hem Raj transferred Rs.10,00,000/- as submitted above and only
Rs.6,000/- was transferred to the complainant-Hem Raj and when
he asked for the proportionate amount of profit / interest then he
was removed from whatsapp group by the Petitioner-Shashikant
Aravind Mule and his co-accused."
4. The petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and
contends that pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner
and their family.
5. The State's counsel opposes bail and refers to the status report.
6. It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the status report,
which read as follows:
"A. ROLE OF THE PETITIONER:
It is respectfully submitted that the Petitioner-Shashikant Aravind
Mule is the Director of the Mindstay Assets Management Pvt. Ltd.
It is further submitted that though the Petitioner-Shashikant
Aravind Mule has contended in para No.10 of the instant petition
that he has resigned from the Company on 18.06.2024, however,
even if the date of resignation of the Petitioner-Shashikant
Aravind Mule is considered, even then he was director of the
Company till the Complainant-Hem Raj has transferred
Rs.10,00,000/- and Rs.5,00,000 on 17.05.2024 and 17.06.2024
respectively, in the account of the company.
B. THE EVIDENCE AGAINST THE PETITIONER
It is respectfully submitted that there is a documentary record that
the Petitioner-Shashikant Aravind Mule was a member of the
whatsapp group and he was director of the company. The
Complainant-Hem Raj had talked to him several times for getting
his amount from the company."
REASONING:
7. Para no.6 of the reply reveals that petitioner along with others was Director of the
company. Although the Investigator's case is that they hatched a conspiracy and there
were money transfers, but petitioner's stand is that he had resigned from the company
and rather he was a victim of the crime. The moment he came to know about the
malicious activities, he resigned by sending a registered letter dated 18.06.2024. This
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
CRM-M-54903-2024
stand is undisputed and given the petitioner's explicit stand of abandoning the company,
the possibility cannot be ruled out that prior to that he might be unaware of the cheating
in the company in which some of its Directors and agents were involved. Thus the act of
resignation does probablize the petitioner's stand of possibly not knowing the real
intention of the company and later on the moment he got to know, he resigned from the
company.
8. Pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing. The
evidence might be prima facie sufficient to launch prosecution or to frame charges, but
this Court is not considering the evidence at that stage but is analyzing it for the stage of
anticipatory bail. An analysis of the above does not justify custodial interrogation or pre-
trial incarceration.
9. The Police did not arrest the petitioner; if they intended to arrest the petitioner, it
was not impossible.
10. Given the above, the penal provisions invoked coupled with the primafacie
analysis of the nature of allegations and the other factors peculiar to this case, there
would be no justifiability for custodial interrogation or the pre-trial incarceration at this
stage. Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar
to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for bail.
This order shall come into force from the time it is uploaded on this Court's official
webpage.
11. Given above, provided the petitioner is not required in any other case, the
petitioner shall be released on anticipatory bail in the FIR captioned above subject to
furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, and if the matter is before a
Court, then the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa
Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accepting the surety, the concerned Officer/Court
must be satisfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused.
12. While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioner shall mention the following
personal identification details:
1. AADHAR number
2. Passport number (If available) and when the
attesting officer/court considers it appropriate or
considers the accused a flight risk.
3. Mobile number (If available)
4. E-Mail id (If available)
13. This order is subject to the petitioner's complying with the following terms.
14. The petitioner is directed to join the investigation within seven days of uploading
this order on the official webpage of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and as and
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
CRM-M-54903-2024
when called by the Investigator. The petitioner shall be in deemed custody for Section 27
of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872/ Section 23 of BSA, 2023. The petitioner shall join the
investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer or any Superior Officer and
shall cooperate with the investigation at all further stages as required. In the event of
failure to do so, the prosecution will be open to seeking cancellation of the bail. During
the investigation, the petitioner shall not be subjected to third-degree, indecent language,
inhuman treatment, etc.
15. In case the Investigator/Officer-In-Charge of the concerned Police Station
arraigns another section of any penal offense in this FIR, and if the new section
prescribes a maximum sentence that is not greater than the sections mentioned above,
then this bail order shall be deemed to have also been passed for the newly added
section(s). However, suppose the newly inserted sections prescribe a sentence exceeding
the maximum sentence prescribed in the sections mentioned above; then, in that case, the
Investigator/Officer-In-Charge shall give the petitioner notice of a minimum of seven
days, providing an opportunity to avail the remedies available in law.
16. This bail is conditional, and the foundational condition is that if the petitioner
indulges in any non-bailable offense, the State shall file an application for cancellation
of this bail before the Sessions Court, which shall be at liberty to cancel this bail.
17. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the
case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.
18. A certified copy of this order would not be needed for furnishing bonds, and any
Advocate for the Petitioner can download this order along with case status from the
official web page of this Court and attest it to be a true copy. If the attesting officer wants
to verify its authenticity, such an officer can also verify its authenticity and may
download and use the downloaded copy for attesting bonds.
19. Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
19.03.2025
Jyoti Sharma
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: No.
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
