Gurbakshish Singh Alias Gd vs. State Of Punjab

Facts

The petitioner, Gurbakshish Singh @ GD, sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 48 dated March 21, 2023, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC at Police Station Kotwali, Bathinda. The FIR was based on a complaint by Dr. Sumit Dhuria, who alleged that the petitioner and co-accused, Manjeet Singh Sandhu and Krishan Gulati (Recovery Manager of Punjab National Bank), induced him to purchase a plot for ₹16.5 lacs. The complainant alleged that ₹5 lacs was given to the petitioner and his wife, and ₹11.5 lacs was transferred to the petitioner's mother's account, on the pretext of securing a plot at a cheaper rate from a bank auction. The petitioner claimed false implication and presented bills for gravel and sand purchased by the complainant from him, along with a GST return, to support his defense. He had interim anticipatory bail from the Court of Sessions, which was later rejected.

Held

The Court dismissed the petition for anticipatory bail. The Court found that the petitioner had attempted to mislead the Court by presenting bills and tax invoices dated January 2023, while the payments from the complainant were made in October/November 2022. This discrepancy, coupled with the nature of the allegations of cheating and forgery, led the Court to believe that custodial interrogation of the petitioner was required to unearth the entire truth. The Court was not inclined to grant anticipatory bail, considering the gravity of the allegations and the material on record. No specific issue was left undecided, as the Court addressed the core question of granting anticipatory bail.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in light of the allegations of cheating and forgery? (Question of law). The petitioner argued that he was falsely implicated and that the bills for gravel and sand, along with the GST return, demonstrated that he had conducted legitimate business with the complainant. He contended that he was ready to join the investigation and had previously been granted interim anticipatory bail. The State, opposing the bail petition, argued that the payments made by the complainant in October-November 2022 were for alleged material purchases in January 2023, which were never delivered. They highlighted that the bills and GST return submitted by the petitioner were for an amount less than the payments received and lacked signatures for material receipt or delivery challans. The State contended that custodial interrogation was necessary due to the petitioner's alleged lack of cooperation and attempt to mislead the court.