Kulwinder Singh vs. U.T Administration, Chandigarh

Facts

The petitioner, Kulwinder Singh, sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 65 dated 15.10.2022, registered under Sections 408, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Sector-19, Chandigarh. The allegations included raising a co-accused's salary without consent, deferring interest beyond permissible limits during the Covid-19 period, enhancing bank loan limits without sanction, and failing to deposit GST and provident fund amounts in time. The petitioner contended that the GST and provident fund amounts were subsequently deposited, that he was not a beneficiary of the bank loan enhancement, and that salary increases were company decisions. He argued the FIR was lodged to pressure him due to a dispute with the Managing Director. The prosecution alleged forgery of letters for salary, interest deferment, and bank limit enhancements.

Held

The Court considered the submissions of both parties and the fact that the petitioner had joined the investigation as per the interim order dated 18.11.2022. The State counsel, on instructions from SI Jai Bhagwan, submitted that the petitioner had complied with the investigation and was not required for further custodial interrogation. In light of this statement, the Court found no impediment to making the interim order absolute. The Court directed that the petitioner must abide by all conditions stipulated under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petition was allowed, and the interim bail granted was made absolute. The Court explicitly stated that its observations were not an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and that the trial court should proceed without prejudice.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in light of the allegations of financial irregularities and forgery under Sections 408, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the GST and provident fund amounts, though delayed, were fully deposited. He claimed he was not a beneficiary of the enhanced bank loan limit, which was for the company. He asserted that salary increments were company decisions and not solely his doing. He further contended that the FIR was a retaliatory measure due to a dispute with the Managing Director, intended to pressurize him. Respondent's (U.T. Administration, Chandigarh) arguments: The respondent argued that the FIR was registered due to the petitioner's alleged forgery of letters to facilitate the enhancement of salary, interest deferment, and bank loan limits. They stated that the police possessed the relevant documents, which were yet to be compared by the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL).