Satish Gorge @ Satish George vs State Of Haryana on 23 February, 2024

Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services — Free for one month.

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Satish Gorge @ Satish George vs State Of Haryana on 23 February, 2024

Author: Gurvinder Singh Gill

Bench: Gurvinder Singh Gill

                                                                            2024:PHHC:025389

                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                                          AT CHANDIGARH

                                                                  CRM-M-2890-2024 (O&M)
                                                                  Date of Decision:- 23.2.2024


                Satish Gorge @ Satish George                                        ...Petitioner

                                                   Versus

                State of Haryana                                                  ...Respondent


                CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL

                Present:         Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, Senior Advocate with
                                 Ms. Ojaswini Gagneja and Ms. Pawelpreet Kaur, Advocates
                                 for the petitioner.

                                 Mr. R.S. Chauhan, AAG Haryana
                                 assisted by Inspector Vijay.

                                 *****

                 FIR NO.           DATE       POLICE STATION                OFFENCES
                      364         7.10.2022   Civil Lines Bhiwani, Sections 201, 420, 467, 468,
                                              District Bhiwani     471/120-B IPC and Sections 7, 8
                                                                   and 13 of the Prevention of
                                                                   Corruption Act, 1988

                GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J.

1. The petitioner seeks grant of regular bail in a case arising out of above

mentioned FIR.

2. The allegations, in nutshell, are that on 1.9.2022 Shri Sumit Nath

Attorney/Legal Representative of Baptist Missionary Society Corporation,

India (in short hereinafter referred to as ‘the BMSC’) made a complaint to

the Superintendent of Police, Bhiwani alleging therein that one Satish

George and his accomplices, in connivance with government officials, had

hatched a criminal conspiracy to dispose of properties owned by the BMSC

KAMAL KUMAR
2024.02.23 17:25
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-2890-2024 (O&M) 2 2024:PHHC:025389

including a plot measuring 20 kanals 11 marlas situated at Hansi Gate,

Bhiwani on the basis of forged and fabricated documents, in favour of

Jaljeet Malik and Rajesh Kumar.

3. Pursuant to receipt of the aforesaid complaint, the matter was inquired into

by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Bhiwani and the allegations, as

levelled by the complainant, were prima facie found to be correct and

accordingly the FIR in question i.e. FIR No. 364 dated 7.10.2022, Police

Station Civil Lines, Bhiwani came to be lodged against more than 9 accused

namely Satish George, Jaljeet Malik, Rajesh, Liyakat Khan, Rohit Phogat,

Sajjan Verma, Deed Writer, Ombir Lambardar, Vikas Registry Clerk and

Ravinder Malik Tehsildar and others.

4. During the course of investigation, resolution dated 17.3.2022 as well as

letter dated 17.3.2022 and also letter dated 1.10.2022 vide which Satish

George was shown to have been appointed as President of the BMSC were

got verified and it was found that the address of the parties as well as the

official address of the Society were false and that all these documents were

forged and fabricated documents. It was on the basis of the said forged and

fabricated documents that a sale deed in respect of the property in question

was purportedly executed and was said to be got registered in a fraudulent

manner. It is further the case of prosecution that although the property is

worth more than Rs. 50 crores but was sought to be sold for

Rs.1,72,01,625/-. It was further found that while as per the said sale deed

dated 5.9.2022, an amount of Rs. 1,72,01,625/- was paid to the Society but

as per the complainant, not even a single penny had been credited into the

account of the Society and nor any other document was found indicating

payment of such amount.

KAMAL KUMAR
2024.02.23 17:25
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-2890-2024 (O&M) 3 2024:PHHC:025389

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been made

scapegoat in the instant case and that even if all the allegations are taken to

be correct, the petitioner cannot be said to be a beneficiary in any manner. It

has further been submitted that since the alleged beneficiary namely Jaljeet

Malik in whose favour the sale deed of the property of the complainant-

Society was executed has already been granted the concession of bail, the

petitioner also deserves the same concession on grounds of parity.

6. Opposing the petition, the learned State counsel submitted that it is a case

where the entire fraud came to be perpetuated due to the active connivance

of the petitioner and that his complicity is clearly evident. It has been

submitted that having regard to the colossal extent of fraud committed upon

a missionary society, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail.

It has, however, been informed that the petitioner has been behind bars for

barely 3 months and that trial qua the petitioner is yet to commence. It has

also been informed that the petitioner happens to be involved in two other

cases i.e. FIR No. 95/2018 under Sections 420, 467, 471, 468/34 IPC, Police

Station Mandleshwar, Khargone (West Nimar) and FIR No. 717/2021 under

Sections 193, 420, 406, 409, 467, 468, 471/120-B IPC, Police Station

Kotwali Dhar, Dhar.

7. This Court has considered rival submissions addressed before this Court.

8. While it is correct that the sale deed in question in respect of the property

fraudulently sold is not in favour of the petitioner but the said fraudulent

sale deed could not have been effected without the active connivance of the

petitioner who while projecting himself as President of the Baptist

Missionary Society Corporation, India had sold off property worth Rs. 50

KAMAL KUMAR
2024.02.23 17:25
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-2890-2024 (O&M) 4 2024:PHHC:025389

crores for a meager Rs. 1.72 crores approximately. The antecedents of the

petitioner also work to the disadvantage of the petitioner inasmuch as he

stands involved in two other cases of cheating and forgery. While one of the

said case was registered in 2018, another was registered in 2021 which

would suggest that the petitioner is incorrigible. The petitioner has been

behind bars for just about three months. In these circumstances, this Court

does not find any ground to release the petitioner on bail at this stage. The

petitioner would, however, be at liberty to apply afresh after six months in

case there is no substantial progress in the proceedings of the trial.

9. The petition stands dismissed in the above mentioned terms.




                23.2.2024                                           ( Gurvinder Singh Gill )
                kamal                                                        Judge
                               Whether speaking /reasoned       Yes / No
                               Whether Reportable               Yes / No




KAMAL KUMAR
2024.02.23 17:25
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

[ad_2]

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *