Gursharan Dass Aggarwal vs State of Punjab

K.C. Puri, J.—This is the second bail application preferred by the Petitioner. The first bail application was dismissed on merit vide order dated 26.5.2011. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the complainant is the promoter, director of M/s Sutlej Fun Resorts Limited, Ludhiana, having 30% share in the said company. That company was incorporated in the year 1987. The accused compelled the complainant to sign on the agreement. As per the agreement, the complainant was compelled to transfer his 20% share in favour of Mr. G.D. Aggarwal i.e. accused and 10% share in favour of Mr. Mukesh Khullar with the condition that the entire amount of 30% held by the complainant shall be paid to him on or before 31.7.1996 and 30.10.1996. It is further pleaded that agreement was duly signed by all the existing directors of the company. Further allegation of the complainant is that no amount has been paid in compliance to the said agreement and his signatures have been forged on Share Transfer Form.

Vide order dated 25.5.2011, in Crl.Misc. No. M-6598 of 2011, the application was dismissed with the observation that the applicant-petitioner has failed to prove the payment of amount of shares.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that although, at the back of the agreement, it has been mentioned that full payment has been received in spite of that without admitting the fact he is ready to deposit the amount in the trial court and that amount be disbursed to the successful party.

At this juncture, learned State counsel and learned Counsel for the complainant is fair enough to concede that the amount agreed as per the agreement (Annexure P-4) is not on the record.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant has placed on record the valuation report prepared by the chartered accountant, in which the value of shares has been mentioned as 111.34 in the year 1996. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that Petitioner is in custody since 20.1.2011. He has further contended that vide order dated 29.8.2011 passed by this Court, prosecution was directed to produce the material witness before the trial court on the date fixed i.e. 1.9.2011 and 15.9.2011 but only one formal witness has been examined and no material witness has been examined. He has further contended that Petitioner is aged about 64 years and he cannot be kept in custody as there is no progress in the present case.

Learned Counsel for the complainant, as well as State have opposed the bail application of the Petitioner and have submitted that the previous bail application has already been dismissed on merit.

Learned Counsel for the complainant has placed the photocopy of the report of Sekhon & Associates, alleged to be dated 14.5.1998 in which valuation has been shown as Rs. 7,02,64,500/-. However, the actual value can Crl.Misc. No. M-20637 of 2011 be determined only in the civil court and this Court is not the proper forum to adjudicate the actual value.

I have carefully considered the said submissions and gone through the record of the case.

The execution of agreement (Exhibit P-4) has been admitted in the FIR itself. Previous application was dismissed on the ground that the accused has failed to prima facie, prove that the amount has been paid. Now, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has offered to deposit the amount as per valuation made by the chartered accountant.

From the record, it is not clear as to what was the actual amount of deal of 30% share of the complainant, and his family members. The accused is in custody for the last about eight months. The case is triable by the Magistrate and the prosecution in spite of direction dated 29.8.2011, has not examined any material witness except formal witness.

Keeping in view the value of the shares, the Petitioner is directed to deposit the amount as agreed in the agreement/ as per valuation made by the chartered accountant.

Each day in custody of the accused gives him a fresh cause of action. The agreement relates to the year 1996 and the FIR has been registered in the year 2008. So, the cumulative effect makes out a case for grant of bail to the Petitioner.

So keeping in view the totality of the circumstances, the Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on deposit of Rs. 15 lacs before the trial court. The said amount shall be kept in the shape of FDR and shall be paid to the successful party.

However, it is made clear that observations made above are only for the purpose of deciding the bail application and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merit of the case.

Bail to the satisfaction of the trial court on depositing of the said amount.