Rulda Singh Chauhan vs. State Of Punjab

Held

The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to anticipatory bail. The primary ground for seeking bail was the complainant's affidavit stating nothing was due. However, the Court found this affidavit unreliable, especially as no satisfactory explanation was provided for the complainant advancing ₹50,000 to the petitioner, suggesting a long-standing friendship. The State's submission that ₹3 lakhs were paid by the complainant, supported by telephonic recordings, was given weight. Furthermore, the petitioner's involvement in other identical cases under Section 420 IPC, with one still pending, weighed against the grant of bail. The Court concluded that the petition lacked merit. The operative direction was the dismissal of the petition, denying anticipatory bail.

Facts

The petitioner, Rulda Singh Chauhan, sought anticipatory bail in a case registered under Section 420 IPC. The FIR was lodged by Jaspreet Singh, who alleged that the petitioner, claiming to be an Assistant at the Punjab Human Rights Commission and running an NGO, induced him to part with ₹3 lakhs. This amount was purportedly for court fees, police verification, passport applications, and GST security fees, for promised employment and pension benefits. The petitioner claimed he was falsely implicated and that the complainant had only given him ₹50,000 as a personal loan when his wife was unwell, which was repaid. He presented an affidavit from the complainant to support this. The State, however, argued that the affidavit was not attested and was obtained on a blank paper. They also presented telephonic recordings indicating ₹3 lakhs were taken and noted the petitioner's involvement in two other identical cases under Section 420 IPC.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in FIR No.154, dated 1.8.2019, registered under Section 420 IPC, considering the allegations of cheating and the evidence presented by both sides? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and principles of bail). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended he was falsely implicated and that the complainant had only advanced ₹50,000 as a personal loan, which was repaid, supported by an affidavit from the complainant. He argued that the affidavit, though not attested, indicated no dues against him. Revenue/State's arguments: The State argued that the affidavit was unreliable, not attested, and obtained surreptitiously. They presented telephonic recordings suggesting ₹3 lakhs were taken and highlighted the petitioner's involvement in two other similar cases under Section 420 IPC, one of which was still pending.