In CRM-M-2254-2022 (O&M)-PUNJ HC- P&H HC grants bail to accused persons in Punjabi University funds scam where they had misappropriated huge sum of money by preparing salary/scholarship bills on basis of forged signatures and seals of concerned authorities
Justice Gurbir Singh [27-01-2023]

Read Order: Bhupinder Singh v. State of Punjab

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, January 28, 2023:  While dealing with bail petitions filed by several employees, students and some outsiders of Punjabi University, Patiala who committed fraud regarding salary/scholarship bills relating to the Department of Chemistry by forging signature and seals of authorities, thereby misappropriating gigantic amount from the University’s account, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has granted bail to the accused.

The Bench of Justice Gurbir Singh held, “Keeping in view the facts that the offence is being tried by Magistrate and there is no other case against the petitioners, further detention of the petitioners would not serve any useful purpose since culpability of the petitioners would be established only during the trial.”

The Court was dealing with five petitions seeking the grant of regular bail in a case registered against the petitioners via an FIR under Sections 406, 409, 381, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 201/120-B IPC, pertaining to the misappropriation of funds of Punjabi University, Patiala by several of its employees, students and some outsiders as well. 

The complainant (Dr. Vikramjit Kumar Kaushik, Registrar, Punjabi University, Patiala) alleged that it was brought to his knowledge that a fraud was committed regarding salary/scholarship bills in the names of Akashdeep Singh Jabbal, Sonu Kumar, Harpreet Singh (son of Karnail Singh), Jatinder Singh, Vinay, Nisha Sharma, all relating to Department of Chemistry, Punjabi University, Patiala on the basis of forgery and fabrication and lacs of rupees were misappropriated. 

The Vice-Chancellor constituted a Committee which conducted inquiry, during the course of which record was perused and disputed bills were examined by a Handwriting Expert who concluded that the disputed signatures on the bills were forged and did not match with those of the Coordinator/Head of UGC-SAP Program of Chemistry Department.

It was further found that Nishu Chaudhary and Jatinder Singh (who worked together in the DPM office) prepared forged salary bills of Research Fellows (who were not genuine beneficiaries). It was also found that Smt. Raminder Kaur, Superintendent also connived with the two and prepared and passed the seven forged salary/scholarship bills of Research Fellows pertaining to period w.e.f. January 2021 to April 2021.

The Committee concluded that Nishu Chaudhary, Raminder Kaur and Jatinder Singh, Peon had stolen/misplaced/destroyed establishment checking records pertaining to the years 2019-2020, 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 so as to avoid detection. Nishu Chaudhary was also alleged to have made changes in the utilization certificates of UGC-CAS (Physics).

Thus, the case of prosecution was that Nishu Chaudhary, in connivance with other officials of the University, had prepared forged and fabricated bills and had got released huge different amounts as scholarships and got them credited in the accounts of their known persons, from whom he used to get back some amount in cash. 

The petitioners’ counsel submitted that the petitioners Bhupinder Singh, Ashu Choudhary and Yogesh Kumar were not named in the FIR which only named Nishu Chowdhary and Harpreet Singh son of Karnail Singh. The Counsel further added that every year, audits of the accounts of University were conducted and none of the auditors pointed out any irregularity in the accounts. There was no allegation of any forgery or cheating against the petitioners except Nishu Chowdhary, the Counsel contended while submitting that the case of the petitioners was based on documentary evidence. 

It was further the Counsel’s case that the case was triable by Magistrate; the challan was already presented but the trial was going on at a slow pace and thus, was likely to take considerable time. It was further argued that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused during trial of the case and thus, refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of an individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 

After hearing the parties, the Court observed that keeping in view the facts that the offence was being tried by Magistrate and there was no other case against the petitioners, further detention of the petitioners would not serve any useful purpose since culpability of the petitioners would be established only during the trial. 

All the petitions were, therefore, accepted and the petitioners were ordered to be released on regular bail on their furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate.