Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kuldeep Patel vs State Of Haryana on 21 December, 2022
1
CRM-M-43681 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-43681 of 2022
Reserved on: 14.12.2022
Date of Pronouncement: - 21.12.2022
Kuldeep Patel
......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Argued by: Mr. R.S. Rai, Sr. Advocate, with
Mr. Karan Pathak, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, DAG, Haryana.
NAMIT KUMAR, J.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Sections
201, 467, 468 and 471 IPC have been added later on in the present FIR,
therefore, the same could not be mentioned in the petition. Learned
State counsel does not dispute this fact.
On the oral request of learned counsel for the petitioner,
Sections 201, 467, 468 and 471 IPC are added in the petition. Registry
is directed to make necessary correction in the petition.
This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section
439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in case FIR No.0267 dated 17.05.2022
under Sections 120-B, 406, 420, 506 IPC (Sections 201, 467, 468 and
471 IPC added lateron) and Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 of the Prize Chits and
Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, registered at Police
Station Hisar Civil Lines, District Hisar.
1 of 7
CRM-M-43681 of 2022
In terms of order dated 21.10.2022, learned State counsel
has filed status report which is taken on record.
FIR in the present case was registered on the complaint
made by the complainant, who stated that accused persons by calling
the complainant on telegram fraudulently induced him by saying that
they have an app. namely WinMoney which is Android link chain app.
and same was approved by Government of India. It deals in chit fund
scheme and that numerous persons have invested their money in this
scheme. The complainant was fell in the trap and he made four IDs as
mentioned in the FIR. He deposited a sum of Rs.12 to Rs.15 lacs in the
said IDs from different bank accounts. For sometime the complainant
was paid commission but later on when the complainant checked the
app. he came to know that the payment was stopped and his IDs and
accounts were blocked. Later on the complainant received a telephone
call on telegram that if the complainant deposits Rs.80,000/- in their
account, his payment in WinMoney app. will be paid to him. However,
the complainant told him that the complainant has already deposited his
entire amount in WinMoney app. and he was not left with anything
more. Said person gave his mobile No. 9773524619 to the complainant
and thereafter he gave ID [email protected] to the complainant and
asked the complainant to deposit the amount in the same. Later on
when the complainant talked to one Aena on telegram, he was told that
they defrauded people through WinMoney app. and the complainant
could do whichever he wanted.
2 of 7
CRM-M-43681 of 2022
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case whereas he was not
involved in the alleged commission of offence. Petitioner was neither
named in the FIR nor any role has been attributed to him. He has been
implicated during the course of investigation. Challan in the present
case has been filed wherein the only allegation against the petitioner is
that co-accused, namely, Uday Mehta in his disclosure statement stated
that a sum of Rs.24,95,000/- was transferred to the account of the
petitioner to be given to Parshant Patel and in lieu thereof he got
commission worth Rs.3 lacs. He further submits that bail application
filed by the petitioner was wrongly dismissed by the Court of learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, vide order dated 05.09.2022. He
further submits that allegations relate to economic offences and the said
offences are triable by the Magistrate. The petitioner is in custody
since 29.06.2022. The allegations are matter of evidence, which shall
be decided by the trial Court during the course of trial. He further
submits that investigation in the present case is complete and challan
has been presented and charges have been framed and now the case is
fixed for prosecution evidence. He further submits that all the
documents are in the custody of the investigating agency and no
recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. He also submits that
account shown in the FIR is neither in the name of the petitioner nor
operated by him.He further submits that no recovery is to be effected
from the petitioner.
3 of 7
CRM-M-43681 of 2022
In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the
petitioner has relied upon judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
cases of Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI Criminal Appeal No.2178 of 2011
(Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.5650 of 2011) decided on 23.11.2011,
Manoranjana Sinh @ Gupta Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
2017(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 1025, Sandeep Jain Vs. National Capital
Territory of Delhi rep.by Secretary, Home Deptt. 2000(1) R.C.R.
(Criminal) 517, Sheikh Ayub Vs. State of M. P. 2006(2) R.C.R.
(Criminal) 63, Shyam Singh Vs. State through C.B.I. 2006(9) SCC
169, judgment of this Court in case Lalit Khurana Vs. State of
Punjab CRM-M No.18477 of 2018 decided on 20.07.2018 and
judgment of Bombay High Court in case Vyomesh Shah and others
Vs. State of Maharashtra 2018(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 791.
Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the prayer for
grant of regular bail to the petitioner and submits that huge amount is
involved in the present case. Although, main accused are Uday Mehta
and Sachin Gudaliya, petitioner is a part of the conspiracy. In case the
petitioner is released on regular bail, he may abscond and misuse the
concession of bail.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record.
In the present case, the allegations in the FIR are not
disputed. Admittedly, the investigation has been completed as not only
the challan has been presented but even the charges have been framed.
It is also not disputed that all the documents are in custody of the
4 of 7
CRM-M-43681 of 2022
complainant or with the investigating agency, but are now with the trial
Court after presentation of final report. Even the mobiles and E-Wallets
have been taken in the custody during investigation.
No doubt while granting bail the Court has to keep in mind
the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof,
severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of
the accused and facts and circumstances of the case. It is also one of the
factors while considering the bail that there is a reasonable possibility
of securing the presence of the accused during trial and reasonable
apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with. The larger interest
of the public/State and some other similar considerations are also there.
It has been held in various judgments of this Court as well as Hon'ble
the Apex Court that in economic offence, the view point is to be taken
differently with different approach in case of bail. The economic
offence having deep rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of
public funds needs to be taken seriously and considered as grave
offence affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby
posing serious threat to the financial health of the country as has been
held by Hon'ble Apex Court in judgment of case Nimmagadda Prasad
Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation AIR 2013 SCC 2821. It is a
settled preposition of law that while granting bail though the Court may
impose reasonable conditions as it thinks fit but the object of putting
conditions is to avoid the possibility of the person hampering
investigation. The discretion of the Court while putting condition is to
be in exercise of judicial discretion. In an offence under Sections 420,
5 of 7
CRM-M-43681 of 2022
201, 467, 468, 471 IPC, the Court is certainly not going to recover the
alleged amount as a condition to grant bail. In other words, reasonable
conditions can be incorporated in exercise of judicial discretion and
purpose of putting such conditions is to secure the presence of accused
at the time of trial/hearing of the case before the trial Court.
Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits
of the case as allegations are matter of evidence to be tested by the trial
Court during the course of trial and by considering that the petitioner is
in custody since 29.06.2022 and also the fact that report under Section
173 Cr.P.C. has been submitted before the trial Court, the offences are
triable by Magistrate and further detention of the petitioner behind the
bars would not serve any useful purpose, the present petition is allowed
and the petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail to the
satisfaction of the trial Court subject to following conditions :-
(1) The petitioner shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.7lacs (Rupees Seven Lacs) with two sureties in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
(2) The petitioner shall surrender his passport before the trial
Court.
(3) He shall not leave country without permission of Court.
(4) He shall not tamper with the evidence or do any act which
will create a reasonable ground to assume that the petitioner
is trying to create hurdle in the investigation or trial of the
case which will entail cancellation of bail.
6 of 7
CRM-M-43681 of 2022
(5) Any other condition which may be imposed by the trial
Court.
(NAMIT KUMAR)
21.12.2022 JUDGE
R.S.
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
7 of 7
