Sanjeev Sirohi
Published on: 12 January 2023 at 20:28 IST
While displaying commendably the highest standards of probity in public life by denying anticipatory bail to certain persons accused of siphoning off the funds of Gurudwara Singh Sabha in Barwala town of Hisar district in Haryana, the Punjab and Haryana High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark and latest oral judgment titled Sarjeet Singh @ Surjeet Singh and others vs State of Haryana in CRM-M-60673-2022 that was pronounced as recently as on January 4, 2023 has minced just no words to hold explicitly that, “The Gurudwara is a pious place and the misappropriation of its funds hurts the sentiments of several people.”
This was so observed quite clearly by the Single Judge Bench of Hon’ble Mr Justice Harnesh Singh Gill. While noting that the petitioners are required for custodial interrogation to recover the amount and to take the investigation to its logical conclusion, the Bench made no bones about the irrefutable fact that setting the petitioners free would set a bad example and would give oxygen to the fraudsters. Of course, we thus see that anticipatory bail was so very rightly denied to the petitioners keeping in view the nature and gravity of the offence.
At the very outset, this refreshing, remarkable, robust, rational and recent oral judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Harnesh Singh Gill of the Punjab and Haryana High Court sets the ball rolling by first and foremost putting forth in the opening para stating that, “Through this petition, the petitioners seek anticipatory bail in case bearing FIR No.974 dated 28.09.2022, registered at Police Station Barwala, District Hisar, under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B IPC.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench then points out in the next para of this learned judgment while dwelling on the petitioners contentions that, “Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in the present case; that the petitioners, who are the competent members of the Gurudwara Singh Sabha, Barwala (Sikh Temple), used to do all the activities of Gurudwara in a legal and lawful manner for the welfare of the Gurudwara and that even a single penny has not been usurped by the petitioners,”.
“Learned counsel further contends that the amount withdrawn by the petitioners, was used for the construction and repairing work of the building of the Gurudwara and well as the shops of the Gurudwara Committee. Even otherwise, the petitioners are ready to deposit the due amount either in this Court or in the trial Court.”
Furthermore, the Bench then states in the next para of this brilliant judgment that, “Learned counsel for the petitioners further contends that the shops under the ownership of Gurudwara were rented out to the relatives of the complainant, but they had not paid the rent for a considerable period and wanted to grab the property of Gurudwara for which the Committee of Gurudwara had already filed various rent petitions against those tenants and the present FIR is the outcome of that proceedings.”
What’s more, we also see that the Bench then hastens to add so very rightly in this extremely progressive, practical and a very pragmatic judgment stating that, “Notice of motion. On the asking of this Court, Mr. Rajesh Gaur, Addl. A.G. Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State.”
As we see, the Bench then enunciates in the next para of this courageous judgment that, “At this stage, Mr. Sanchit Punia, Advocate, puts in appearance and files his power of attorney on behalf of the complainant, which is taken on record.”
Quite ostensibly, the Bench then lays bare in the next para of this extremely commendable judgment that, “Learned State counsel and learned counsel for the complainant, while opposing the grant of bail to the petitioners, submit that there were several FDRs in the name of the Gurudwara Singh Sabha, which were supposed to be matured in December, 2022, but by closing the same prematurely, the petitioners in connivance with each other had transferred about Rs.71 lakh to their personal bank accounts and even to the account of a private company run by petitioner No.2.”
Needless to say, the Bench then observes in the next para of this concise judgment that, “I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.”
Quite significantly, the Bench then lays bare in the next para of this progressive judgment that, “There are serious allegations against the petitioners that they in connivance with each other had siphoned off the funds of Gurudwara Singh Sabha, by transferring the same to their personal accounts and even to the account of a private company run by petitioner No.2.”
Most significantly, the Bench then minces absolutely no words to state in the next para what forms the cornerstone of this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment wherein it is propounded and directed that, “The Gurudwara is a pious place and the misappropriation of its funds hurts the sentiments of several people. Setting the petitioners free would set a bad example and would give oxygen to the fraudsters. As such, they do not deserve any concession of anticipatory bail.”
As a corollary, the Bench then holds in the next para of this noteworthy judgment that, “Keeping in view the nature and gravity of the offence, this Court finds that the petitioners are required for custodial interrogation to recover the amount and to take the investigation to its logical conclusion.”
Finally, the Bench then concludes by directing in the final para that, “Therefore, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed.”
All said and done, we thus see that the Punjab and Haryana High Court has decided this leading case strictly on merit and pure merit alone and minced just no words whatsoever to clearly convey a loud and clear message that Gurudwara is a sacred place and misappropriation of its funds hurts the sentiments of people.
We all know how blind faith the devotees have in Gurudwaras due to which many donate also most lavishly which just cannot be denied by anyone. It thus certainly merits no reiteration that due to the gravity of the seriousness of the situation in this present case, we thus see that the Punjab and Haryana High Court made it indubitably clear that the petitioners do not deserve any concession of anticipatory bail.
It also sought to send a loud and clear message that setting the petitioners free would set a bad example and would give oxygen to the fraudsters. So it was but natural that bail had to be denied to them so that they could face custodial interrogation and we see the same being done also so very commendably by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. There can certainly be just no denying it!
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate
