IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M-23940 of 2009
Date of decision : October 09, 2009
Manav Mahajan
....Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab
....Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal
Present : Mr. Naresh Dilawari, Advocate, for the petitioner
Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG Punjab with
Mr. Anand Chhibbar, Advocate, for the complainant
L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral)
Manav Mahajan has filed this petition for bail in case FIR No.
168 dated 18.11.2008 under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC,
Police Station Derabassi, District SAS Nagar (Mohali).
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
case file.
According to the prosecution version, the petitioner alongwith
co-accused entered into agreement to sell House No. 84 Sector-9,
Chandigarh to complainant Kewal Garg for Rs 16.25 crores and obtained Rs
2 crores as earnest money. However, later on it turned out that the
petitioner and his co-accused had forged documents regarding the said
property. M/s Pure Drinks is the owner of the said property. Ajit Singh is
one of the directors thereof. The petitioner and his co-accused forged
Criminal Misc. No. M-23940 of 2009 -2-
agreement in their favour purported to have been executed by M/s Pure
Drinks through Ajit Singh and on the basis of that agreement, the petitioner
and his co-accused entered into sale agreement with the complainant.
Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that
earlier FIR No. 127 dated 17.9.2008 was registered against the petitioner
and others. The allegations in that FIR were that the petitioner and
Kulwinder Singh had taken away Rs 20 lacs from the Manager of the
complainant by cheating representing that the complainant had asked for
the amount for purchase of some property at Zirakpur. Out of that amount,
Rs 19 lacs were recovered from the petitioner and his co-accused Kulwinder
Singh. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the said FIR was
registered under section 420 read with section 34 IPC but during
investigation, offences under sections 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC
were also added in the said FIR relating to transactions of House No. 84
Sector-9, Chandigarh. It is contended that the petitioner was granted bail in
FIR No. 127 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated
31.10.2008 Annexure P/7 and later on the added offences were also
allowed to be added in bail order vide subsequent order dated 8.11.2008,
Annexure P/8 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge and therefore,
the petitioner on the same allegations cannot be kept behind the bars in the
instant FIR registered regarding the same transactions.
The aforesaid contention although apparently very attractive
cannot be accepted. Perusal of order dated 31.10.2008, Annexure P/7 of
learned Additional Sessions Judge whereby petitioner was granted bail in
FIR No. 127 reveals that the said bail order was passed only relating to
transaction of Rs 20 lacs involved in that FIR. Perusal of order dated
Criminal Misc. No. M-23940 of 2009 -3-
8.11.2008, Annexure P/8 of learned Additional Sessions Judge reveals that
added offences were ordered to be added in routine and as a formality
without in any manner adverting to the transactions relating to House No.
84 Sector-9, Chandigarh. On the other hand, the same Additional Sessions
Judge vide order dated 13.8.2009, Annexure P/3 has dismissed the
petitioner’s bail application in the instant FIR because learned Additional
Sessions very well knew that bail order in FIR No. 127 was passed only
regarding transaction of cheating of Rs 20 lacs and not relating to
transaction of House No. 84 Sector-9, Chandigarh involving the instant FIR.
In addition to the aforesaid, learned counsel for the complainant
has pointed out that the petitioner has not only cheated the complainant but
has also cheated Ajit Singh and the Company Court i.e. this Court as in
winding up petition filed by DCM Financial Services Limited against M/s
Pure Drinks, Company Judge had ordered stay of alienation of property of
M/s Pure Drinks. Inspite thereof, the petitioner entered into impugned
agreement with the complainant after forging and fabricating an agreement
in favour of the petitioner and his co-accused on behalf of Ajit Singh,
Director of M/s Pure Drinks.
Keeping in view all the circumstances and the fact that the
petitioner has cheated the complainant of Rs 2 crores by fabricating
documents, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail.
Accordingly, without meaning to express any opinion on merits, the instant
bail petition is dismissed.
( L.N. Mittal )
October 09, 2009 Judge
'dalbir'