Ravi Goyal vs State of Punjab

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—As the identical points for consideration to grant the concession of anticipatory bail or otherwise to petitioners & main accused Ravi Goyal son of Tarsem Lal and Gaurav Gupta son of Ramesh Chander Gupta, are involved, therefore, I propose to decide the above indicated petitions, arising out of the same case/FIR, vide this common order to avoid the repetition of facts.

The petitioners have preferred the instant separate petitions for the grant of concession of pre-arrest bail, in a case registered against them along with their other co-accused, by means of FIR No. 129 dated 18.6.2014 (Annexure P10), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120B IPC by the police of Police Station Division No. 5, Civil Lines, Ludhiana.

After hearing the learned counsels for the petitioners, going through the record with their valuable help and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the present petitions for anticipatory bail in this context.

Ex facie, the arguments of learned counsels that the dispute in question is of civil nature and since the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant, so, they are entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail, are neither tenable nor the observations of this Court in bail matter in case Kesho Ram Gupta v. State of Punjab 2012(2) RCR (Criminal) 782 are at all applicable to the facts of the instant case, wherein, the petitioner (therein) was posted as Assistant General Manager of Bank of India. A loan was sanctioned in favour of M/s. Akhileshwar Industries. A draft worth Rs. 16,15,200/- was issued in favour of M/s. Natraj Industries, Faridabad. Later on, this draft was surrendered and four drafts were issued in favour of M/s. Mahesh Industrial Corporation, Railway Road, Mandi Gobindgarh, District Fatehgarh Sahib. The amount was transferred to the account of wife of one of the partners. The only allegation against the Assistant General Manager was that he connived with the main accused had transferred the amount. No other specific role or part was attributed to him. On the peculiar facts and in the special circumstances of that case, the anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner (therein). There can hardly be any dispute with regard to the aforesaid observations, but, to me, the same would not come to the rescue of the petitioners in the present controversy, for the reasons mentioned here-in-below.

As is evident from the record that pith & substance of the prosecution version, inter-alia, is that complainant Satinder Singh Thakur son of Kanwar Parkash Chand (for brevity "the complainant") and Jai Krishan Mittal son of Prem Chand Mittal were owners and they leased out the premises in dispute to M/s. Commander Forgings, through its proprietor Ravi Goyal (petitioner), by way of registered lease deeds dated 18.12.2012 (Annexures P1 and P2). Petitioner Ravi Goyal applied for financial assistance of Rs. 2,50,00,000/- (Two Crores Fifty Lacs) on 28.12.2012 for the purpose of construction of factory premises and for purchase of machinery to meet working capital requirement from the Punjab National Bank (for short "the bank"), Ludhiana. They have also executed the security documents, by virtue of which, the entire stocks, machinery, assets created with the funds of the bank of stock of cycle parts etc. were hypothecated as charged Primary Securities. According to the complainant that before the loan was to be granted, the bank sought the legal opinion, wherein, the legal advisor opined that permission of change of land use is mandatory for the purpose of construction of factory premises in the urban area and for creation of the mortgage, but Sanjay Bhatia, Manager of the bank was hand in glove with the accused. He, after ignoring the legal advice and without going through the validity/genuineness of the documents, distributed the loan of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Fifty lacs) on 2.1.2013 towards construction of the building over the land of the owners. However, till today, no building was constructed by them on the pointed land. The accused have prepared the false report by fabricating the documents with regard to the construction of the building as well.

Sequelly, the case of the complainant further proceeds that he was shocked to receive a notice dated 9.5.2014 from the bank. On inquiry, it revealed that on 23.10.2013, the accused have got the credit facility released by showing himself to be the owner of the plots of the complainant, which had been leased out to M/s. Commander Forgings. They have received an amount of Rs. 2 1/2 crores from the bank on different occasions by preparing false documents. Not only that, the accused have further fabricated the bill of M/s. Bajwa Machine Tools, which does not deal with the supply of machinery purported to have been purchased by petitioner Ravi Goyal by forging the bill with the connivance of his co-accused.

Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events in detail in the FIR, in all, the prosecution claimed that petitioners and their other co-accused have hatched a criminal conspiracy with the connivance of bank officials, cheated the complainant, prepared & used the forged documents as genuine, fraudulently obtained and misappropriated the loan of Rs. 2 1/2 crores of the bank on the basis of fake documents. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of complaint of the complainant, the present case was registered against the accused in the manner depicted here-in-above.

Meaning thereby, very direct and serious allegations are assigned that the petitioners and their other co-accused have hatched a criminal conspiracy with the connivance of bank officials, cheated the complainant, prepared & used the forged documents as genuine, fraudulently obtained a loan of Rs. 2 1/2 crores from the bank on the basis of fake documents. In this manner, the petitioners have received a huge amount from the complainant and misappropriated the pointed amount, which is yet to be recovered. Even they have not returned the amount to the bank. Likewise, the mere fact that other co-accused of petitioners were granted the benefit of anticipatory/regular bail, by means of orders dated 17.7.2014 and 3.7.2014 (Annexures P12 and P13) respectively, ipso facto, is not a ground, muchless cogent, to grant the concession of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners, as contrary urged on their behalf, as they are the main accused and are guilty of indicated heinous offences. The police has yet to interrogate them and to collect evidence.

Therefore, considering the seriousness of pointed allegations of the offences in question, to me, custodial interrogation of petitioners is necessary. In case, they are allowed the concession of pre-arrest bail, then, the police would be deprived to ascertain the modus operandi of petitioners, their involvement in other such cases, to unearth the scam, recover huge indicated amount, forged documents, other case property and effective investigation. It would naturally adversely affect & weaken the case of the prosecution, which, to my mind, is not legally permissible. Therefore, they are not entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail in the obtaining circumstances of the case.

Moreover, it is now well settled principle of law that the order of anticipatory bail cannot be allowed to circumvent normal procedure of arrest, recovery of case property from the main accused and investigation by the police. The Court has also to see that the investigation is in the province of the police and an order of anticipatory bail should not operate as an inroad into the statutory investigational powers of the police, in exercising the judicial discretion in granting the anticipatory bail. Sequelly, the Court should not be unmindful of the difficulties likely to be faced by the investigating agency and the public interest likely to be affected thereby.

In the light of aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the seriousness of allegations of cheating & misappropriation of the amount in question against them and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of main case, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petitions for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioners are hereby dismissed as such.

Needless to mention that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, on merits of the main case, in any manner, during the trial, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petitions for anticipatory bail only.