No pre-arrest bails for those who commit fraud: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Misappropriating the amount which must be paid to the farmers amount to fraud and are inexcusable and if any middle man is found usurping the crop amount of the farmers and left scot-free, it would be an injustice to them. Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the bail application in the case of Darshna Rani and Vijay Kumar vs. State of Punjab [CRM-M-1600-2021, CRM-M-2138-2021] presided over by the single bench of Hon’ble Justice H.S Madaan. In the instant case, a petition had been filed by Darshana Rani and her husband Vijay kumar for the pre-arrest grant of bail. An FIR had been lodged against the couple u/s 420, 120-B, 406 IPC by the complainants Baljeet Singh Tiwana and others alleging that the couple and their son had been working as commission agents at village Lassoi; they purchased Kharif (rice crop) but did not make the payment to the concerned farmers, even though they had received the amount from the government. Farmers alleged that the couple used the farmer’s money for their own expenses and purchased properties in the village. Farmers contended that the couple only paid Rs 28 lacs to the farmers, although the total amount payable was Rs 70 lacs. Farmers complained that the couple used the remaining amount for their own benefits and did not pay them.  Petitioners argued that they had already paid the entire dues to the farmers and no financial liability are remaining towards the complainants but they had no evidence to prove their innocence. Petitioner’s counsel tried to invoke sympathy of the court by saying that both husband and wife are old and are not keeping good health and that’s why bail should be granted to them. HC Bench stated that “Pre arrest bail is a discretionary relief and is to be granted in exceptional cases and not in a routine. It is meant to save the innocent persons from harassment and inconvenience and not to screen the culprits from arrest and custodial interrogation”.  High Court observed that there were serious allegations put up against a couple of frauds. And no plausible and satisfactory explanation came forward from the side of petitioners as to why they could not make payment to the complainants after receiving the price of crops sold by them.  Hence, HC gave the decision that the arguments put up by the petitioners were unsatisfactory and insufficient. It was stated that “Leniency and misplaced sympathy cannot be shown to the petitioners by granting concession of pre-arrest bail to them by ignoring the plight of the complainant/farmers, who do hard work and put in a lot of efforts in the agricultural operation hoping to get a reward for such efforts in having good crops and then to earn their livelihood by sale of such crops.” Therefore, High Court instructed the petitioners to pay the due amount to all the farmers and stated that the petitioners had committed grave offence of misappropriation of money of the complainants and for that, they couldn’t be allowed grant of discretionary equitable relief of pre-arrest bail.
 on 28 01 CRM M 1600 2021 &CRM M 2138 2021 :1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH1.CRM M 1600 2021Darshna Rani...... Petitioner VersusState of Punjab...... Respondent2.CRM M 2138 2021Vijay Kumar...... Petitioner VersusState of Punjab...... RespondentDate of decision : 25.1.2021CORAM : HON BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. MADAAN Present :Mr.Anil Kumar Garg Advocatefor the petitioners in both cases.Mr.J.S. Ghuman DAG Punjab.Mr.Gulam Nabi Malik Advocatefor the complainant. H.S. MADAAN J. Cases taken up through video conferencing.Vide this order I shall dispose of two petitions for grant of pre arrest bail i.e. CRM M 1600 2021 filed by petitioner Darshna Rani and on 28 01 CRM M 1600 2021 &CRM M 2138 2021 :2: CRM M 2138 2021 filed by petitioner Vijay Kumar both of them beinghusband and wife and accused in FIR No.208 dated 12.12.2020 underSections 420 120 B 406 IPC registered at Police Station Sadar Ahmedgarh District Sangrur.Briefly stated the facts of the case as per the prosecution storyare that criminal machinery in this case was set into motion by complainantBaljeet Singh Tiwana and several other persons residents of village Lassoi Police Station Ahmedgarh District Sangrur who in the written complaintsubmitted by them to SSP Sangrur sought registration of the FIR againstthe present petitioners Vijay Kumar son of Milakh Raj his wife DarshnaRani as well as their son Deepak Kumar earlier residents of village Lassoiand presently residing at Guru Teg Bahadur Colony Backside Prem LataHospital Malerkotla. Inter alia in the complaint the complainantscontended that Vijay Kumar and his whole family including his wifeDarshna Rani and son had been working as commission agents at villageLassoi they purchased Kharifbut did not make the payment tothe concerned farmers according to J forms although they had received theamount deposited by the Government with regard to the crops sold by thefarmers the accused had used the money for their own purposes it was withgreat difficulty that the accused had paid an amount of Rs.28 lakhs out oftotal amount of Rs.70 lakhs whereas remaining amount wasmisappropriated accused committing fraud of about 87 lakhs whichincluded payments for earlier crops as well as for Kharif crop the accusedown big properties in the form of four houses in Malerkotla two big plantsin industrial area a cold store on Ludhiana Road two rice shellers at village on 28 01 CRM M 1600 2021 &CRM M 2138 2021 :3: Lassoi and 130 bighas of agricultural land in the name of daughter ofpetitioner Vijay Kumar the accused have created all those properties withthe money belonging to the innocent farmers receiving the amount from theGovernment without paying the same to the farmers concerned earlier also petitioner Vijay Kumar had committed a fraud at Khanna about 30 years agoand then he left that spot a criminal case was registered against him at thattime. On receipt of such complaint formal FIR was registered.Apprehending their arrest in this case petitioners accused hadapproached the Court of Sessions seeking grant of pre arrest bail but theirsuch applications were dismissed by the Court of learned AdditionalSessions Judge Sangrur vide separate orders order dated 29.12.2020. Assuch they have approached this Court asking for similar relief by way offiling separate petitions. Notice of the petition filed by petitioner Darshna Rani had beenissued to the respondent State on 13.1.2021 and notice of the petition filedby petitioner Vijay Kumar has been issued to the State today itself. Mr.J.S.Ghuman DAG Punjab accepts notice on behalf of respondent State.Mr.Gulam Nabi Malik Advocate has also appeared on behalf of thecomplainant. They opposed both the petitions.I have heard learned counsel for the parties besides goingthrough the record.Pre arrest bail is a discretionary relief and is to be granted inexceptional cases and not in routine. It is meant to save the innocent personsfrom harassment and inconvenience and not to screen the culprits fromarrest and custodial interrogation. on 28 01 CRM M 1600 2021 &CRM M 2138 2021 :4: Here there are grave and serious allegations against both thepetitioners of having misappropriated the money payable to thecomplainants which they had received from the Government as sale price ofcrops sold by the complainants through commission agency of the accused.The money runs into lakhs of rupees. There is no plausible and satisfactoryexplanation coming forward from the side of petitioners as to why they havenot made payment to the complainants after receiving the price of crops soldby them to the Government through commission agency of the accused.Learned counsel for the petitioners has tried to render anexplanation that as per normal practice in the villages the farmers receivemoney from the commission agent from time to time which is finallyadjusted against the money payable to them as price of the crops sold by thefarmers through agency of the commission agent. But I find such explanation to be highly unconvincing. Learnedcounsel for the petitioners has just referred to a general practice withoutspecifying as to how much amount had been received by which of thecomplainant on which date which was to be adjusted against the price ofthe crop payable to such complainant. No copies of account books insupport of such contentions have been placed on record. During the course of hearing learned counsel for thepetitioners was asked to get necessary instructions from his clients whetherthey were ready to make the payment to the complainants even ininstallments but he stated that as per instructions received by him from thepetitioners the money stood already paid and the petitioners do not haveany financial liability towards the complainant. The stand taken by the on 28 01 CRM M 1600 2021 &CRM M 2138 2021 :5: petitioners show their adamant attitude. They are taking the plea of paymenthaving already been made without there being sufficient evidence tosubstantiate those contentions. The counsel for the petitioners has tried to invoke sympathy ofthe Court submitting that petitioner Vijay Kumar is an aged person of 63years not keeping good health and he has suffered a paralytic attack in themonth of December 2019 affecting his memory whereas petitioner DarshnaRani is a woman aged about 64 years who is not much aware of thebusiness of the commission agency. Therefore both the petitioners begranted an opportunity to join the investigation and present their version. However I am not impressed by these submissions. Withserious and grave allegations of fraud and misappropriation being thereagainst the petitioners their old age or ailments etc. cannot help them inescaping arrest and custodial interrogation which in this case is found to benecessary for complete and effective investigation and to recover themisappropriated money belonging to the farmers. The Court cannot losesight of the fact that hard earned money running into lakhs of rupeesbelonging to the complaint farmers has been usurped by the petitioners whoare stated to have created huge properties by use of this money and othermoney said to have been misappropriated by the petitioner accused VijayKumar of various farmers at Khanna. Leniency and misplaced sympathycannot be shown to the petitioners by granting concession of pre arrest bailto them by ignoring the plight of the complainant farmers who do hardwork and put in lot of efforts in the agricultural operation hoping to getreward for such efforts in having good crops and then to earn their on 28 01 CRM M 1600 2021 &CRM M 2138 2021 :6: livelihood by sale of such crops. If some middle man successfully usurps theprice of the crops and is allowed to go scot free that shall result inperversity of the justice and would amount to great injustice to the affectedcomplainant farmers. Both the petitioners are stake holders in thecommission agency business and are liable to pay dues of thecomplainant farmers.Learned counsel for the petitioners came up with another pleathat in case any farmer has got any grouse against the petitioners withregard to payment of the price of the crops sold by him through commissionagency of the petitioners he may file a suit for recovery or take any civilaction.This plea deserves to be rejected on the face of it. The Courtsare required to do substantial justice and not to let offenders go scot freeaccepting such like pleas. The petitioners have committed grave offence ofmisappropriation of money belonging to the complainant. They cannot beallowed to succeed in their such designs by grant of discretionary equitablerelief of pre arrest bail to them.In case of State represented by the C.B.I. Versus AnilSharma 1997(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 268 Hon ble Apex Court had observedthat custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation orientated thanquestioning a suspect who is on anticipatory bail in a case like thisinterrogation of suspected person is of tremendous advantage in gettinguseful informations. Custodial interrogation of the petitioners is definitely required on 28 01 CRM M 1600 2021 &CRM M 2138 2021 :7: to find the necessary details of the criminal acts committed by them and forthe purpose of recovery of money. In case custodial interrogation of thepetitioners is denied to the investigating agency that would leave manyloose ends and gaps in the investigation affecting the investigation beingcarried out adversely which is not called for. Therefore no case for grant of pre arrest bail to either of thepetitioners is made out. Thus the petitions stand dismissed. ( H.S. MADAAN )25.1.2021 JUDGEBrij1. Whether reportable No 2. Whether speaking reasoned Yes 