Satpal v. State of Punjab

ANOOP CHITKARA, J. FIR No. Dated Police Sta/on Sec/ons 69 19.04.2024 City-1, Abohar, Dis-. Fazilka 420, 120-B IPC

¶1The pe!!oner apprehending arrest in the FIR cap!oned above has come up before this Court under Sec!on 438 of CrPC, [BNSS], seeking an!cipatory bail.

¶2In Note (iii) of the bail pe!!on, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.

¶3The facts and allega!ons are being taken from the reply dated 08.08.2024, filed by the concerned DySP, which reads as follows: "4. That it is respectfully submi:ed that the present case has been registered on the basis of an applica-on submi:ed by Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Abohar vide applica-on no.4798 dated 16.08.2023 in which it has been alleged that Manoj Kumar, Secretary of Village Panchayat of Dhani Chirag informed BDPO, Abohar that approximately Rs.10,00,000/- have been withdrawn from the bank account no. 501003816xxxxx of 15th Finance Commission of HDFC, Branch Abohar from 15.07.2023 to 23.07.2023 by using ATM Card on different date and at different ATM Centres. It has been specifically recorded in the applica-on that no ATM card is issued to the account holder of Government Bank Account of 15th Finance Commission because payment order/judgment. 1 is to be made to the concerned firm through cheque or PFMS only on the basis of a resolu-on passed by the concerned Gram Panchayat. The bank accounts of each Gram Panchayat are being operated jointly by Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Panchayat Secretary and Village Sarpanch. So, it is the responsibility of the concerned bank that no ATM card should be issued at the -me of opening the bank account of the Gram Panchayat and it should be ensured at the -me of making payment that all the requisite formali-es have been completed or not. It is further requested that an inquiry may be conducted from Manoj Kumar, Panchayat Secretary, Ram Lal, Village Sapranch of Gram Panchayat, Dhani Chirag and the concerned officials of HDFC Bank, Branch Abohar and take suitable ac-on accordingly.

¶5That on receipt of the said applica-on, a preliminary inquiry was conducted by Inspector Sunil Kumar, SHO, Police Sta-on City-1, Abohar. From the preliminary inquiry it is found that ATM cards were not issued in case of Government Bank accounts by the concerned bank as per the policy and if the same has been issued, then it is the responsibility of the concerned bank to block the said ATM cards. In this case, as per the report of HDFC Bank, Branch Abohar, 51 bank accounts were opened in related to 15th Finance Commission of Gram Panchayat and 32 ATM cards were issued by the officials of HDFC Bank, Branch Abohar out of the said 51 bank accounts. So, Sumit Chabra, the then Bank Manager, Satpal son of Om Parkash an employee of HDFC Bank now pe--oner, Arish Singla son of Rakesh Kumar, Sunil Kumar son of Om Parkash, resident of Killianwala are liable to be inves-gated by registering a case. A recommenda-on was made that during the course of inves-ga-on, if the connivance of Panchayat secretary, any other bank official or any other person is found, then ac-on may be taken accordingly. A detailed preliminary inquiry report dated 16.01.2024 was submi:ed by SHO, Police Sta-on City-1, Abohar."

¶4The pe!!oner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent condi!ons and contends that further pre-trial incarcera!on would cause an irreversible injus!ce to the pe!!oner and their family.

¶5The State's counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply.

¶6It would be appropriate to refer to the following por!ons of the reply, which read as follows: order/judgment. 2 "9. ROLE OF THE PETITIONER That from the inves-ga-on, it is found that accused Satpal now pe--oner was posted as Assistant Manager in HDFC Bank, Branch Abohar at the -me of commission of offence. The Kit aDer opening the bank account in HDFC Bank, Branch Abohar were in the possession of accused Satpal. As per record, accused Satpal now pe--oner supplied the said complete Kit's to the customers i.e. Iqbal Singh the then Panchayat Secretary of Dhani Chirag on 19.10.2020 and others whereas the applica-ons/Account Opening Forms were submi:ed by the concerned account holders to open the bank accounts only on 28.10.2020. It is per-nent to men-on here that in the Kit the following necessary par-culars are required to be filled by the account holder i.e. Account number, Customer ID, Debit Card, Debit pin, cheque book with five leaves. Thus the said par-culars cannot be furnished by the account holder un-l and unless the account has not been opened. In this case, the said Kits were supplied to the said account holders by accuse Satpal now pe--oner which are antedated and it shows that accused Satpal now pe--oner obtained the signatures of the concerned account holders that the Kits have been supplied to them without opening bank accounts, thus accused Satpal did not supply the Kits to the account holders but he obtained the signatures in advance prior to the opening of the bank accounts."

¶7Pre-trial incarcera!on should not be a replica of post-convic!on sentencing. The evidence is prima facie sufficient to launch prosecu!on or to frame charges, but this Court is not considering the evidence at that stage but is analyzing it for the stage of an!cipatory bail. An analysis of the above does not jus!fy custodial interroga!on or pre-trial incarcera!on.

¶8Given the above, the penal provisions invoked coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allega!ons and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no jus!fiability for custodial interroga!on or the pre-trial incarcera!on at this stage. Without commen!ng on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons men!oned above, the pe!!oner makes a case for bail. This order shall come into force from the !me it is uploaded on this Court's official webpage.

¶9Given above, provided the pe!!oner is not required in any other case, the pe!!oner shall be released on an!cipatory bail in the FIR cap!oned above subject to furnishing bonds to the sa!sfac!on of the Arres!ng Officer, and if the ma-er is before a order/judgment. 3 Court, then the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accep ng the surety, the concerned Officer/Court must be sa sfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused.

¶10While furnishing a personal bond, the pe

oner shall men on the following personal iden fica on details:

¶1AADHAR number

¶2Passport number (If available) and when the a-es ng officer/court considers it appropriate or considers the accused a flight risk.

¶3Mobile number (If available)

¶4E-Mail id (If available)

¶11This order is subject to the pe

oner's complying with the following terms.

¶12The peoner is directed to join the invesgaon within seven days of uploading

this order on the official webpage of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and as and when called by the Invesgator. The pe

oner shall be in deemed custody for Sec on 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872/ Sec on 23 of BSA, 2023. The pe

oner shall join the inves ga on as and when called by the Inves ga ng Officer or any Superior Officer and shall cooperate with the inves ga on at all further stages as required. In the event of failure to do so, the prosecu on will be open to seeking cancella on of the bail. During the inves ga on, the pe

oner shall not be subjected to third-degree, indecent language, inhuman treatment, etc.

¶13The pe

oner shall abide by all statutory bond condi ons and appear before the concerned Court(s) on all dates. The pe

oner shall not tamper with the evidence, influence, browbeat, pressurize, induce, threaten, or promise, directly or indirectly, any witnesses, Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case or dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police or the Court.

¶14In case the Inves gator/Officer-In-Charge of the concerned Police Sta on arraigns another sec on of any penal offense in this FIR, and if the new sec on prescribes a maximum sentence that is not greater than the sec ons men oned above, then this bail order shall be deemed to have also been passed for the newly added sec on(s). However, suppose the newly inserted sec ons prescribe a sentence exceeding the maximum sentence prescribed in the sec ons men oned above; then, in that case, the Inves gator/Officer-In-Charge shall give the pe

oner no ce of a minimum of seven days, providing an opportunity to avail the remedies available in law. order/judgment.

¶15Any observa on made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

¶16Before par ng, making the following directory observa ons is expedient so that frauds like these cannot occur.

¶17Let the concerned officials of the Reserve Bank of India deliberate on this issue and consider issuing direc/ons to all the banks that no ATM cards/ Debit Cards/Credit Cards form part of the account opening kits.

¶18The Registry will send a copy of this order to the Reserve Bank of India, Bombay,

for appropriate ac on.

¶19A cer fied copy of this order would not be needed for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Pe

oner can download this order along with case status from the official web page of this Court and a-est it to be a true copy. If the a-es ng officer wants to verify its authen city, such an officer can also verify its authen city and may download and use the downloaded copy for a-es ng bonds.

¶20Pe//on allowed in terms men oned above. All pending applica ons, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE

28.11.2024 Jyo/-II order/judgment.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 11.11.2024 Pronounced on: 28.11.2024 Satpal ...Pe!!oner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Abhaysher Singh, Advocate, for the pe!!oner. Mr. Sukhdev Singh, AAG, Punjab. ****