Parvinder Singh vs. State Of Haryana

Facts

The petitioner, Parvinder Singh, sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 489 dated 24.12.2019, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 201 IPC. The FIR alleged that the petitioner, in connivance with co-accused Amit Goyal (a CA) and others, facilitated the registration of several fake firms, including M/s Joshi Enterprises. These firms allegedly conducted transactions worth crores of rupees, causing a loss to the state exchequer. The complainant alleged being cheated by the accused, who used his firm and effected transactions for substantial amounts. The State contended that the petitioner actively participated in the fraud, with the bank account of M/s Joshi Enterprises linked to the petitioner's phone number and funds transferred to a firm where his brother is a director. The petitioner claimed false implication.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to anticipatory bail. The reasoning was based on concrete evidence showing huge transactions in the bank account of M/s Joshi Enterprises, which was linked to the petitioner's phone number. The transfer of substantial amounts from this bogus firm to a firm where the petitioner's brother is a director further indicated the petitioner's complicity. The Court found that the petitioner had actively participated in the fraud in connivance with other co-accused and had facilitated the opening of various bogus firms. The State provided figures indicating significant sales against M/s Joshi Enterprises and a substantial tax amount, with the total amount involved in all bogus firms running into crores. Given this evidence, the Court concluded that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner would be necessary. Therefore, the petition was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in FIR No. 489 dated 24.12.2019, considering the allegations of cheating and the registration of fake firms under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 201 IPC? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that he was falsely implicated and that there was no credible evidence connecting him to the alleged fraud. He contended that the primary fraud was executed by co-accused Amit Goyal, who involved several innocent persons. Respondent's (State of Haryana) arguments: The State argued that the petitioner actively participated in the commission of offences, including the registration of fake firms like M/s Joshi Enterprises, which engaged in transactions worth approximately `21,46,67,258/-. They submitted that the petitioner's phone number was linked to the firm's bank account and that disclosure statements from co-accused implicated the petitioner. The State also highlighted the transfer of `9.90 lacs from the petitioner's firm to his brother's firm and the registration of ten other bogus firms.