Amarjit Singh Bhatti vs. State Of Punjab

Facts

The petitioner, Amarjit Singh Bhatti, sought regular bail in FIR No. 0077 registered on 02.06.2023 at Police Station Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana, under Sections 408, 420, 120-B, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC. The complainant, Amarjit Singh Bali, alleged that the petitioner, his former accountant since 2008, defrauded him of approximately Rs. 1,19,35,880/-. The petitioner allegedly procured signatures on cheques, created fake invoices, and facilitated fraudulent GST refunds. The petitioner was arrested on 04.11.2025 at IGI Airport, Delhi, after proceedings for declaring him a proclaimed offender and issuing a Look Out Circular were initiated. Investigation is concluded.

Held

The Court considered the rival submissions and found the allegations against the petitioner to be serious, involving conspiracy, wrongful loss, breach of trust, forgery, and the use of forged documents. Specifically, the offence under Section 467 of the IPC is punishable with life imprisonment. The Court noted that the petitioner was an absconder, and the apprehension that he might abscond again if granted bail was not unfounded. The trial had commenced, and there was no evidence suggesting undue delay in its conclusion. The Court reiterated the well-settled principle that grant of bail is a discretionary relief dependent on specific facts and circumstances, including the nature of accusations, severity of potential punishment, and the evidence. The reasonable apprehension of tampering with evidence or threatening witnesses, along with the frivolity of the prosecution, are also factors. In light of these principles and the circumstances, the Court found no compelling grounds to allow the bail petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail in FIR No. 0077 registered under Sections 408, 420, 120-B, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC, considering the allegations of fraud, forgery, and the petitioner's absconding status? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner claims false implication, denies benefiting financially, and states he ceased employment and left India for the USA on 27.04.2021, prior to the alleged transactions. He also notes a co-accused received pre-arrest bail, investigation is complete, trial will be lengthy, and the offences are Magistrate-triable. He asserts clean antecedents and argues for release on bail. Respondent's arguments: The State, assisted by the complainant's counsel, argues the allegations are serious, involving duping the complainant of a huge sum through fake invoices and false GST refunds. They highlight the petitioner's absconding status, declaration as a proclaimed person, and arrest via a Look Out Circular, raising concerns of him absconding again. They contend the trial has commenced and there's no indication of undue delay, thus opposing bail.