Crl. Misc. No. M-14830 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-14830 of 2009 Date of decision: 27.5.2009 Gurdeep Singh ….. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ….. Respondent Present: Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the petitioner. **** S.S. SARON, J. Heard counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered against him on 29.1.2009 for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 Indian Penal Code (“IPC” – for short). The complainant Kulvinder Kumar has alleged that he came in contact with the petitioner through one of his old friends. The petitioner and his son Ramji Malhotra held out a false promise that if he invested Rs.17540/- in their Company M/s Rattan Dhara Networking Private Limited, they would give him returns to the tune of Rs.18,42,750/- in 12 months which would be given by cheques after deducting TDS. It is alleged that the petitioner and his son Ramji Malhotra had great convincing power and assured the complainant that he could earn the profit if the amount was invested with them. The complainant invested a sum of Rs.17,450/- and also introduced many friends and relatives. As many as 65 persons became members of the scheme. When no monthly cheques were received as was committed by the Managing Director Ramji Malhotra, the complainant had suspicion. It is alleged that the petitioner and his son had cheated more than 65 persons to the tune of crores Crl. Misc. No. M-14830 of 2009 2 of rupees. They bought a Mercedes car costing about Rs.50 lacs from the said Company’s account. Now the accused had closed their offices at Jalandhar and Delhi. It is also alleged that the complainant has also been running a jewellry showroom in the name of M/s Ram Hari Jewellers in the Rajouri Garden market at New Delhi but their associates have been sitting in the said office. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the story as set up by the complainant is entirely cooked up and false. In fact the complainant had sought distributorship for the distribution of ‘Malas’ (short rosaries) which contained a Pendant. A person selling the rosary for Rs.17,450 /- was to be given commission of Rs.5,000/- and the purchaser was to further sell it and take the commission and in this manner, the chain was to be continued. A reference has been made to the terms and conditions (Annexure P2) of the distributorship. A distributor according to the terms was to purchase any one of the listed product or kit, in Indian Currency. The complainant, it is submitted, had signed the declaration of the terms and conditions. Therefore, it is submitted that the allegations as made are contrary to the settled terms and conditions (Annexure P2) between the complainant and the petitioner. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, I find no merit in the same. It may be noticed that the article for which the distributorship is stated to have been given is not such an item which can be said to be a branded item or of a high value so as to give a distributorship for the same. The learned Additional Sessions Judge while declining anticipatory bail to the petitioner in his order dated 6.5.2009 (Annexure P7) after going through the records found that not less than 65 persons are alleged to have been cheated by the accused to the tune of Rs.16.5 lacs. Investigations of the case it was observed were at a delicate stage. It was further observed that the offence alleged against the petitioner constitutes a white collar crime spanning over long series of acts which does not call for extra-ordinary relief of pre-arrest bail to him. It was also noticed that the petitioner is the prime accused and merely because some other accused have been granted regular bail would not Crl. Misc. No. M-14830 of 2009 3 entitle the petitioner for the grant of pre-arrest bail as the parameters were altogether different. The facts and circumstances on record do not make out any case for the grant of pre-arrest bail. The petitioner is alleged to have cheated about 65 persons to the tune of Rs.16.5 lacs. The advantage of the custodial interrogation of the petitioner for the purpose of eliciting more and useful information is to be kept in view. Even otherwise, the exercise of power for grant of pre-arrest bail is somewhat extraordinary in character. In the circumstances, no ground for pre-arrest bail is made out and the Crl. Misc. petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE May 27, 2009 amit