Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shilpi Jindal vs State Of U.T. Chandigarh on 26 May, 2022
CRM-M-46948-2021 -1-
213 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-46948-2021
Date of Decision:26.05.2022
Shilpi Jindal
......Petitioner
Versus
State of U.T., Chandigarh
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Mr. Barun Jaswal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Amit Goyal, APP, U.T., Chandigarh.
****
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.(Oral)
The prayer in this petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is for
the grant of regular bail in case FIR No.332 dated 04.09.2017 under
Sections 406, 420, 34 IPC, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 Prize Chits and
Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 registered with Police
Station South 34, Chandigarh.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant-Reny
Kakkar got registered the FIR with the allegations that the petitioner and
other persons were running different kitty groups for gold and diamond
ornaments. They were also involved in trading of gold and diamond
ornaments under the name and style of M/s Aditya Diamonds at
Manimajra, Chandigarh. Kitty groups were started in the year 2013,
whereunder a sum of Rs.2000/- to 5000/- per month was received from
members for a period of 20 months. On maturity, gold and diamond
1 of 6
jewellery was to be delivered to kitty members. It went well till the year
2015 after which there were delays in delivering the jewellery but the
prescription was regularly received by the petitioner. Thereafter, neither
gold or diamond jewellery was delivered nor the amounts in question
were refunded.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that a
number of persons are aggrieved in the present case, though the FIR has
been registered at the instance of Reny Kakkar. He states that one Ashish
Bansal has effected a compromise with the petitioner and he is the
witness, who has deposited a sum of Rs.78,01,666/- and therefore, the
petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail, when the total alleged
defalcated amount is Rs.1,00,45,000/-. He further contends that there
are six other FIRs against the petitioner, in which she is on bail and
since, she has been in custody since 27.09.2019, she ought to be granted
the concession of regular bail in this case as well.
4. The Counsel for the State on the other hand contends that
the antecedents of the petitioner do not entitle her to the grant of regular
bail. She might have compromised the matter with one of the aggrieved
persons but that by in itself does not mean anything when none of the
other aggrieved persons have effected a settlement with her. He, thus
contends that the petitioner does not deserves the concession of regular
bail.
5. I have heard the counsel of both the sides at length.
6. On 06.05.2022, the counsel for the petitioner had stated that
Mr. Ashish Bansal was willing to come to this Court and support the
2 of 6
case of the petitioner for the grant of bail and since he is the victim, who
has deposited the chunk of the money to the tune of Rs.78,01,666/- out
of the total defalcated amount of Rs.1,00,45,000/-, a settlement with him
itself would entitle the petitioner to the grant of bail. Mr. Ashish Bansal
who is present in Court today does not oppose the grant of bail to the
petitioner. It may also be pointed out that the petitioner has been in
custody since 27.07.2019 and only 02 out of the 18 prosecution
witnesses have been examined till date.
7. While dealing with the issue of grant of bail to an
accused/convict with criminal antecedents, the Courts have held as
under:-
In Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Versus State of U.P. and
another, 2012(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 586, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held
as under:-
"6.It is not in dispute and highlighted that the second
respondent is a sitting member of Parliament facing
several criminal cases. It is also not in dispute that
most of the cases ended in acquittal for want of
proper witnesses or pending trial. 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."
(Emphasis supplied)
3 of 6
In Rajender Singh Versus State of Haryana, CRM-40431-
2021 in CRA-D-1640-DB-2014, decided on 19.01.2022, this Court held
as under:-
"We are quite conscious of the fact that the applicant
in the present case is a prior convict, and therefore,
his case would be an exception to the ratio of the law
laid down in Daler Singh's case (supra). However, on
having examined the factual matrix in the case of the
applicant, we are inclined to suspend the rest of the
sentence of the applicant for the following reasons:-
(i) The applicant has undergone approximately 09
years of his substantive sentence of 12 years i.e. 03
years more than the prescribed period under Daler
Singh's case (supra).
dated 10.05.2006 in which he was sentenced for 02
years, and he has undergone the same. In the
second conviction in FIR No. 84 dated 21.07.2006,
the applicant was sentenced for 10 years and he
has been granted bail vide order dated 03.12.2009.
So, as on date, the applicant is in custody only in
the present case.
(iii) If pendency of other FIRs is the only
consideration for denial of bail, then whenever a
convict/under- trial applies for bail, the same
would be denied simply looking at the pendency
of another case. While, it is true that the grant of
bail/suspension of sentence would have to be
looked at in the larger context of the criminal
antecedents of the accused/convict, it is equally
true that the appreciation of evidence in the
trial/appeal would have to be with reference to the
4 of 6
evidence in that case alone and not with respect to
the evidence in the other pending cases against
him. Therefore, strict adherence to the rule of
denial of bail on account of pendency of other
cases/convictions would put the accused in
vicious loop of never being granted bail because
the bail in each case would be denied due to the
pendency of another case/conviction. This would
clearly be violative of the right to speedy
trial/expeditious disposal of an appeal as
recognized under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India, as the accused would never be granted bail
in any case leading to indefinite periods of
incarceration assuming of course that the appeal
is not heard within a reasonable period of time.
(iv) The appeal, in the present case, which stands
admitted on 14.11.2014, is not likely to be heard in
the near future due to the COVID-19 pandemic,
which does not show sign of abating.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view
that the applicant ought to be released on bail having
undergone 08 years 11 months and 19 days of his
substantive sentence of 12 years."
(Emphasis supplied)
8. In view of the judgments in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi's
case (supra) and Rajender Singh's case (supra); the statement of Ashish
Bansal; the period of custody undergone by the petitioner and the fact
that the petitioner has been granted bail in the other cases registered
against her, the further incarceration of the petitioner is not required.
5 of 6
9. Thus, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is
ordered to be released on bail subject to the satisfaction of learned
CJM/Duty Magistrate, concerned.
10. The petitioner shall surrender her passport, if not already
done so.
11. The petitioner shall appear before the police station
concerned on the first Monday of every month and shall furnish an
affidavit each time that she is not involved in any other crime other than
the present case and those mentioned in the custody certificate during the
time she is on bail.
(JASJIT SINGH BEDI)
JUDGE
26.05.2022
JITESH
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
6 of 6
