Mandeep Singh vs. State Of Punjab

Facts

The petitioner, Mandeep Singh, sought anticipatory bail in an FIR registered under Sections 420, 406, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant alleged that in January 2021, she was induced by Aarti and Mandeep Singh, associated with Hardeep Furniture House, to believe a loan of Rs. 5,000/- was sanctioned. She provided documents and signatures, receiving Rs. 4,500/- after file charges, with an agreed repayment of Rs. 11,000/- per month for five months. Subsequently, she received messages indicating a loan of Rs. 20,600/- or Rs. 17,600/-. Upon inquiry at IDFC Bank, she learned the loan was obtained by Hardeep Furniture House in her name without her knowledge. The FIR was registered based on these allegations.

Held

The Court dismissed the petition for anticipatory bail. The Court noted that statements from seven victims had been recorded, consistently alleging that the petitioner, along with Aarti and bank officials, obtained loans in their names and embezzled funds by routing them through the Hardeep Furniture House account. The Court found that the nature of the allegations against the petitioner and his co-accused did not warrant the grant of bail. Furthermore, the Court emphasized the necessity of custodial interrogation for the investigation to reach its logical conclusion. Therefore, the Court concluded that the petition had no merit and dismissed it.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, an employee of Hardeep Furniture House, is entitled to anticipatory bail given the allegations of cheating and criminal conspiracy? The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner was merely an employee of Hardeep Furniture House, whose proprietor, Hardeep Singh, managed all financial transactions through his bank account. They contended that the loan was sanctioned and passed by IDFC Bank, with amounts reflected in Hardeep Singh's account, and that Hardeep Singh was primarily liable. The counsel also pointed to a delay of one year in the FIR registration without explanation and asserted the petitioner's entitlement to pre-arrest bail as an employee. The State's counsel countered by presenting evidence from a preliminary inquiry, indicating the petitioner managed the furniture house along with Aarti, who had advised Hardeep Singh to open it. They advertised the business and lured innocent people into loan schemes. The State alleged that the petitioner withdrew loan amounts credited to Hardeep Singh's account under the pretext of purchasing products for customers, with invoices issued by Hardeep Singh and GST deposited. The State further submitted statements from seven victims who corroborated the petitioner's involvement with Aarti and a bank official in obtaining loans in their names and embezzling funds, arguing the petitioner was the main accused and not entitled to anticipatory bail.