Read Order: Mamta v. State of Haryana 

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, May 14, 2022:  While dealing with a case wherein the petitioners (females) in conspiracy with others duped several victims of a staggering amount of Rs 167 crore by alluring innocent people on the pretext of providing them tenders with National Security Guards, Manesar (NSG, Manesar), the Punjab and Haryana High Court has denied bail to the said petitioners considering the serious allegations of fraud and cheating against them. 

The Bench of Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan added, “Even otherwise, Section 437 Cr.P.C. does not give any absolute right to bail to a lady, who is allegedly an accused in a number of other FIRs for duping people from general public worth hundred crores of rupees.”

The Court was dealing with petitions filed under Section 439 read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to petitioners Mamta and Rituraj Yadav in FIR registered under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 506 and 120-B of the IPC Act

The FIR was registered at the instance of complainant-Monesh Israni alleging that the accused played fraud and cheated him for an amount of Rs. 64.49 crores on the pretext of providing tenders for the construction of housing projects of National Security Guards, Manesar (‘NSG, Manesar’) by forging the documents of the office of Director General, NSG, Manesar and by opening and operating a fake bank account in name of G.C. (Garison) NSG, Manesar. 

The two accused (one of whom pretended to be an IPS Officer) allured the complainant into believing that big projects were being announced and they would meet at the campus of NSG Manesar for meetings. 

The counsel, on behalf of petitioner Rituraj Yadav, submitted that she was in fact the Branch Manager of Axis Bank, where the alleged bank account in the name of a Government office was opened by using fake documents and that she had no knowledge that his brother Parveen Yadav was playing any fraud as he was posted as Assistant Commandant, NSG, Manesar and her husband (Naveen Kumar) was also posted as Commandant in NSG, Manesar. 

It was further argued that based on the documents submitted by the co-accused, the petitioner has opened the account and later on, the allegations were that the entire amount was siphoned off in the account of a company namely M/s Koshia Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., in which co-accused/petitioner Mamta (who is the wife of accused Parveen Yadav), was the Director and the authorized person and petitioner had no concern with the same. 

On behalf of Mamta, it was argued that she was the wife of co-accused Parveen Yadav and being a housewife, she had no knowledge about the conduct of her husband.

The counsel for the petitioners further argued that both the petitioners were in judicial custody for the last 03 months and 22 days and since the investigation was complete and challan was presented; the petitioners were entitled to get bail in view of the special provision under Section 437 Cr.P.C.

On the contrary, the State Counsel argued that both the petitioners, who were educated persons, played an active role in committing the offence in conspiracy with their husband/brother and father-in-law Kamal Singh. It was further submitted that petitioner Mamta was the Director of M/s Koshia Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., which was created only for siphoning off the funds from the fake bank account opened by co-accused/petitioner Rituraj Yadav. 

Reflecting on the role of Rituraj Yadav, the Counsel argued that she was the Branch Manager in Axis Bank, NSG, Manesar Branch, where she opened the said fake account in the name of “Office of CG (Garrison) Station Head Quarters NSG”, on the basis of fake documents and therefore, she was not a mute spectator. 

The counsel for the complainant submitted that in all a total of Rs. 167 crores were cheated by the accused persons including petitioners in a similar fashion and the modus operandi adopted by the accused was alluring the innocent persons on the pretext of providing them tenders with NSG, Manesar, a very prestigious institution. The Counsel further argued that Section 437 Cr.P.C. does not give an absolute right to an accused person to get bail, who is habitual of committing an offence. 

At the very outset, the Court refused to grant the benefit of being released of bail, to the petitioner, on the ground that the petitioners, in active conspiracy with co-accused Parveen Yadav (the husband of petitioner Mamta and brother of petitioner Rituraj Yadva) firstly, opened a fake account (with Axis Bank, NSG, Manesar, where petitioner Rituraj was the Branch Manager) in the name of a Government office based on fake documents wherein signatures of a senior police officer were forged by the accused persons.

Further, the Court noted that all the forged documents and formalities were completed by Rituraj Yadav alone in opening the account as she knew that the amount by victims will be deposited in this account, which will be further siphoned off to the account of M/s Koshia Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., where Mamta was the Director and authorized signatory, therefore, since the time of inception of the conspiracy, both the petitioners were actively involved in executing the conspiracy and committing the offence. 

Also, the argument of the petitioners that they were entitled to get bail in view of the provisions of Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. was not accepted by the Court as both the petitioners, apart from the present FIR, were involved in four more FIRs of similar nature, where other victims were also cheated by all the accused persons in conspiracy with each other and a total fraud of around Rs. 167 crores were committed. Therefore, the Court found that it was not a special case.  

Additionally, the Court added that even otherwise, Section 437 Cr.P.C. does not give any absolute right to bail to a lady, who is allegedly an accused in a number of other FIRs for duping people from general public worth hundred crores of rupee
Also, the argument that the petitioners were having children with them was also held by the Court to be no ground for granting them bail at this stage in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as the jail authorities were bound to provide all the medical assistance to petitioners and their children if so required. Thus, the petitions were dismissed.

0 CommentsClose Comments

Leave a comment