No sympathy for fraudsters misusing name of high-ups, says Punjab and Haryana High Court

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, December 2

The court has no sympathy for crooks, who not only tarnish the image of those in responsible positions for their private gains but also denigrate the time-tested system of recruitment and appointment to public posts, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has asserted.

The assertion came as Justice Suvir Sehgal of the High Court took note of the state counsel’s submission that there were direct allegations against petitioner-accused, “who has duped both the private respondents misusing by the name of a State Minister”.

Dismissing the pre-arrest bail plea, Justice Sehgal asserted the examination of material placed on the record along with a status report filed by way of an affidavit by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ambala Cantonment, showed that a forged appointment letter dated April 20 under the signatures of the Chief Secretary to Government of Haryana was issued.

A person was shown to have been appointed as a Sub-Inspector (Male) and asked to report for training on May 20. The bank statements of his respondent-relative reflected an electronic transfer of Rs 7 lakh between April 22 and May 11 to the bank account of the petitioner.

Still further, the bank statement of respondent-relative’s wife depicted an electronic transfer of Rs 7 lakh to the petitioner’s bank account on April 24. Besides, there was a WhatsApp exchange on the corresponding dates between the parties, which had been placed on record by the complainants.

“When all this material is examined in juxtaposition, it becomes evident that the petitioner had projected himself to be a go between and had duped the complainants on the allurement of getting appointments and other related work in the police department. The exchanged chats, the transfer of a huge amount of money, etc. is an indicator to the fact that the petitioner had extended the assurances as has been alleged in the FIR. All this material points out towards the complicity of the petitioner in the crime,” Justice Sehgal observed.

Before parting with the order, Justice Sehgal added except for one-sided transfer of funds, there was neither any material on the record, nor could the petitioner’s counsel substantiate his argument that the money was given because of business dealings between the parties.

The petitioner’s offer to refund the entire amount of Rs 28 lakh was an argument raised in order to save his skin. Furthermore, the petitioner was named as an accused in two other criminal cases on the allegation of misusing the name and alleged connection with a state minister. “Allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious and his custodial interrogation is required to unearth the nexus and gamut of crime,” Justice Sehgal said.