In Crl. Misc. No.M-17930 of 2023-PUNJ HC- P&H HC dismisses bail plea of accused who connived with CITCO officials to obtain original bank guarantee through fraudulent means
Justice Sudhir Mittal [13-04-2023]

Read Order: PIYOOSH OBEROI V. STATE OF U.T. CHANDIGARH

Mansimran Kaur

Chandigarh, April 19, 2023:The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the accused does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail as obtaining the original bank guarantee through fraudulent means is a serious allegation.

A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Sudhir Mittal dismissed the instant petition by observing that the original bank guarantee in the instant case was obtained through fraudulent means. Thus, the only possible conclusion was that the Firm through the petitioner had connived with officials of CITCO for release of the bank guarantee resulting in commission of forgery and fraud.

 The allegations in the FIR were that discharge of a bank guarantee of Rs 35 lacs was obtained by misrepresenting the facts before the bank and by forging a letter in connivance with officials of the Chandigarh Industrial and Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. (CITCO). The original of the bank guarantee was also fraudulently obtained.

The senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Firm was a service provider whic had entered into a contract for supply of manpower to CITCO.  After expiration of the contract the Firm was entitled to get the bank guarantee discharged. The allegations of connivance and forgery were patently false. Letter dated June 8, 2022 issued by CITCO was received under a registered post which shows that the same was in fact sent by CITCO. 

Assuming that the allegation was correct, the petitioner was willing to deposit a sum of Rs 35 lakh by way of demand draft in favour of the Registrar General of this Court during the pendency of the trial. The evidence was entirely documentary in nature and, thus, the petitioner deserved the concession of anticipatory bail, the Counsel submitted. 

After considering the submissions, the Court noted that there was no dispute that the petitioner had executed a contract of supply of manpower and that the same expired on September 30, 2021. Payments of the said contract were already released. However, the bank guarantee was not released and the reason therefore seemed to be the outstanding claims against the Firm.

 The same was in force till January 23, 2023 as was evident from a perusal of the original which was seen in Court. An internal enquiry conducted by CITCO prima facie established connivance between the Firm and certain employees. It was also evident that Sunil Kumar who had signed a letter dated June 8, 2022 was not an employee of CITCO, the Court noted.

 The said enquiry also showed that the original of the bank guarantee was obtained through fraudulent means. Thus, the only possible conclusion that can be reached was that the Firm through the petitioner had connived with officials of CITCO for release of the bank guarantee resulting in commission of forgery and fraud. 

“These allegations were very serious in nature and, thus, even though the evidence is documentary in nature, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail”, the Court further remarked. 

For such reasons, an offer of deposit of Rs 35 lakh couldnot be accepted, the Bench said while dismissing the petition.