High CourtsSingle Bench

Gurjan Singh Grewal vs State of Himachal Pradesh

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 11 January 2012 · Citation: (2012) 01 SHI CK 0112

HON’BLE JUDGES
Kuldip Singh, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 438 · Himachal Pradesh Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 — Section 5 · Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 120B, 420
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal M.P. (M) No. 7 of 2012
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

11 paragraphs · 962 words

Kuldip Singh, Judge

1.

This judgment shall dispose of Cr.M.P.(M) Nos.7 and 8 of 2012 filed by Gurjan Singh Grewal and Sandeep Kumar respectively u/s 438 Cr.P.C. for releasing them on bail in FIR No. 504 dated 29.09.2011, registered at Police Station, Kullu, under Sections 420, 120-B IPC and Section 5 of the Himachal Pradesh Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999.

2.

It has been stated by the petitioners that the case has been registered on the complaint of one Inderjit Singh alleging therein that he was a member of Company popularly known as ''SOSS'' ( Success On Line Service System Private Limited) and invested a sum of Rs. 79,000/- in the Company. Raman Kumar C.M.D., Rakesh Kumar C.E.O.and local agent cheated him and fled away to Delhi.

3.

It has been stated that the petitioners have nothing to do with the Company and they have been falsely implicated in the case. Raman Kumar and Rakesh Kumar were owners of the Company. It has been stated that petitioners themselves were the investors in the Company like complainant. They were duped and they have also submitted a complaint to the police. The petitioners have no role in the Company. On the registration of the case, the petitioners apprehend their arrest in the case. The petitioners are ready to join the investigation and furnish bail bonds. The prayer has been made for releasing the petitioners on bail u/s 438 Cr.P.C.

4.

The Investigating Agency has filed identical status reports in both the cases. It has been stated that case has been registered on the complaint of Inderjit Malik on 29.09.2011. It has come in the investigation that Nikhil Nanda, Sandeep Goldy, Raman Kumar and Rakesh Kumar were the Directors of the Company. In order to mislead the consumers, they prepared bonus scheme. Gurjan Singh Grewal was made Convenor of the Company in Himachal Pradesh. In 2010 Gurjan Singh Grewal and Sandeep Goldy, founders of the Company in Himachal Pradesh, Sita Ram Nair, Jai Dev, opened office of the Company near ''Kala Kender'', Kullu. Ms. Meena Rana was appointed Branch Manager in the said Office. The Company was misleading the people that Company is registered with Reserve Bank of India and money invested in the Company would become double. The Company in the beginning paid some amounts to some persons in order to gain faith of the people in the area.

5.

The Company has misappropriated Rs. 1,00,00,000/- in District Kullu. Gurjan Singh Grewal, Sandeep Kumar alias Sandeep Goldy, founders, of the Company in Himachal Pradesh opened branches of the Company in Kullu, Una, Kangra and Rampur. Gurjan Singh Grewal and Sandeep Kumar alias Goldy have acquired property worth crores from the money of the investors. The details of such properties are to be obtained, their bank accounts are to be freezed.

6.

The complaint has also been received from Una of misappropriation of Rs. 80,00,000/- by the Company. The High Court has dismissed the bail applications of Raman Kumar and Rakesh Kumar on 04.01.2012 and both of them have been taken into custody on 05.01.2012. It has been stated that in case the petitioners are released on bail, then they are likely to tamper the evidence. The submission has been made for rejection of the bail applications.

7.

Heard and perused the police file. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that Sandeep Kumar remained Director of the Company from March, 2011 to June, 2011. The case has been registered on 29.09.2011. The petitioner Sandeep Kumar has nothing to do with the Company after June, 2011. The petitioner Gurjan Singh Grewal was not an employee or Director of the Company. The submission has been made for releasing both the petitioners on bail.

8.

The learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that the Company has duped the innocent people of Himachal Pradesh. The petitioner Sandeep Kumar remained Director of the Company as per the case of the petitioner Sandeep Kumar himself. It has been submitted that it has come in the investigation that Sandeep Kumar and Gurjan Singh Grewal introduced the Company in Himachal Pradesh and opened offices of the Company. They misled the people that the Company is registered under the Reserve Bank of India, money of the investors will be doubled in two years. They trapped several persons, who made investments in the Company. It has been submitted that both the petitioners were receiving amounts from the investors in Himachal Pradesh on behalf of the Company and both of them were receiving bonus from the Company for collecting the money. It has been submitted that the petitioners in conspiracy with other accused collected huge amounts in Kullu, Una, Kangra and Rampur from the investors and misappropriated the amount.

9.

I have considered the rival contentions on both sides. The allegations against the petitioners are that they are the persons, who brought the Company in Himachal Pradesh and collected money from the investors representing the Company to be genuine Company operating legally and the money of the investors would be doubled in two years. The petitioners collected money from the investors. They got bonus from the Company for the collection. The allegations are that both the petitioners have acquired huge properties in Himachal Pradesh, details of such properties are to be ascertained. In case, the petitioners are released on bail, then they will transfer such properties and tamper the evidence. In view of seriousness of the case, the petitioners are not entitled to pre-arrest bail at this stage in public interest. Thus, both the petitions are dismissed.

10.

The observations made in the judgment are for the disposal of the bail applications and shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case.