Explain why ‘PA to minister’ not held yet in cheating case registered by Sangrur police, HC asks bureau
Saurabh Malik
Tribune News Service
Chandigarh, May 21
The Punjab and Haryana High Court today directed the Punjab Additional Director, Bureau of Investigation, to explain why Bachitar Singh — stated to be PA to Punjab Cooperative Minister — had not been arrested so far in a cheating case registered by the Sangrur police.
Directions were issued to constitute a special investigation team, to be headed by a senior police officer, to look into the role of a co-accused. Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan also made it clear the SIT would also look into the modus operandi of all accused.
Cheating case
- Four persons were booked after complainant delivered sugar worth Rs74,16,611 to one of the suspects. Only Rs57,16,111 was paid
- The court has ordered formation of an SIT, to be headed by a senior police officer, to look into the role of a co-accused
Justice Sangwan was hearing a petition filed by Sanjeev Kumar against the state of Punjab for grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered for cheating and criminal conspiracy on May 2 under Sections 420 and 120-B, IPC, at the Longowal police station in Sangrur.
Justice Sangwan’s Bench was told the FIR was registered at the insistence of Ram Dass Bansal, alleging four persons — Bachitar Singh, Abhishek Goyal, Sanjeev Goyal and Pandit Vishnu Prashad — in a conspiracy induced the complainant to deliver sugar worth Rs 74,16,611 to Pandit Vishnu Prashad. Of the total, Rs 57,16,111 was paid. It was stated all accused persons were habitual of committing fraud and some other FIRs were pending against them.
Petitioner’s counsel HS Brar further submitted Sanjeev Kumar, on an assurance given by Abhishek Goyal that he was in need of loan, transferred certain amount to the complainant’s account through net banking on two different dates.
Brar added Kumar was himself a victim, and had extended loan to the co-accused. He was neither entrusted with sugar, nor was having connection or meeting of mind with the co-accused. It was further submitted three of the accused — Sanjeev, Abhishek and Vishnu Prashad — had been arrested. But co-accused Bachitar Singh had not been arrested so far.
Punjab state counsel, assisted by complainant’s counsel Ishan Gupta, submitted the petitioner could not explain why he deposited Rs 9,50,500 into the complainant’s account. Therefore, he was also part of the conspiracy.
Gupta added the modus operandi was that the petitioner issued cheque as and when the liability of Sanjeev arose so that later on a defence could be taken they were different persons and the petitioner had no liability to make the payment. Justice Sangwan directed the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer within 10 days to join investigation.
