Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ravi Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 29 October, 2024
Author: Kirti Singh
Bench: Kirti Singh
CRM-M-30587-2024 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Sr. No.224-2 CRM-M-30587-2024
Date of decision : 29.10.2024
RAVI KUMAR ..... Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA ..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH
Present: Mr. Shalender Mohan, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Deepak Thukral, Addl. AG, Haryana and
Mr. Gaurav Bansal, DAG, Haryana.
*****
KIRTI SINGH, J. (Oral)
The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been invoked for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.126 dated 17.03.2024, under Sections 467, 468, 471, 473, 476 and 34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Sector 17, HUDA, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.
2. The brief facts of the case are that complainant-Sandeep Kumar, a Notary in Jagadhari Court, moved a written complaint alleging that on 13.03.2024, he was approached by a young man who showed two affidavits to complainant and claimed that they were attested by him on 07.03.2024. Upon inspection, Sandeep discovered the stamp on the affidavits was forged. The individual claimed to have been sent by one Akshay and when the complainant asked him to make a call to Akshay, he requested to use the bathroom and attempted to escape but was apprehended and the police was informed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case, asserting that he has no connection KAVITA NAIN to the alleged offenses and was not associated with the bank at the time of 2024.10.29 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document order/judgment CRM-M-30587-2024 2 the incident. Furthermore, the counsel points out that the complainant has not identified the petitioner, and he is not named in the FIR. The petitioner has been in actual custody for 7 months and 10 days, with no prior history of involvement in any criminal cases.
4. Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He has filed custody certificate in Court today and the same is taken on record. As per custody certificate, the petitioner has undergone an actual custody of 07 months and 10 days and there is no other case registered against him. He on instructions from the concerned police official submits out of total 08 prosecution witnesses, only one has been examined. He, however, submits that in view of serious allegations against the petitioner, he is not entitled to the concession of regular bail.
5. Heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
6. Admittedly, the investigation of the case is complete and out of 08 prosecution witnesses, only one has been examined till date. The petitioner has undergone an actual custody of 07 months and 10 days and there is no other case registered against him.
7. It would be unjust to keep him behind bars looking at the condition of the jails which are not conducive for rehabilitation process and detaining the accused persons in jails would also tantamounts to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India including the right to speedy trial, and is against the principle "Bail is a rule, jail is an exception" as elucidated in the judgment of Apex Court in "Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh KAVITA NAIN and another, (2018) 3 SCC 22".
2024.10.29 17:56I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document order/judgment CRM-M-30587-2024 3
8. As far as the pendency of other cases and involvement of the petitioner in other cases is concerned, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (2) SCC 382 in which, it is held that the facts and circumstances of the present case are to be seen while deciding a bail application and the bail application of the petitioner cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in another case. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced herein-below:-
"As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc."
9. Deprivation of personal liberty without ensuring speedy trial is not consistent with Article 21. While deprivation of personal liberty for some period may not be avoidable, period of deprivation pending trial/appeal cannot be unduly long. The Apex Court in "Abdul Rehman Antulay and others v. R.S. Nayak and another", 1992(2) RCR (Criminal) 634 observed that Right to Speedy Trial flowing from Article 21 encompasses all the stages, namely the stage of investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and retrial.
10. The veracity of the allegations leveled against the petitioner shall be established during the course of the trial. The conclusion of the trial will take a considerable time. Therefore, this Court is of the view that further incarceration of the petitioner will not serve any purpose. KAVITA NAIN 2024.10.29 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document order/judgment CRM-M-30587-2024 4
11. Without commenting anything on the merits of the case, lest it may prejudice the trial, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing adequate bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. The petitioner shall also abide by the following conditions:-
(i) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The petitioner will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(s).
(iii) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
(iv) The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused of, or for commission of which he is suspected.
(v) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
12. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.
13. However, nothing stated above shall be construed as a final expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court would proceed independently of the observations made in the present case which are only for the purpose of adjudicating the present bail petition.
(KIRTI SINGH)
JUDGE
29.10.2024
Kavita
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
KAVITA NAIN
2024.10.29 17:56
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
order/judgment