Tribhuvan Parnami vs State Of Haryana
2022 Latest Caselaw 14663 P&H

            CRM-M-44349 of 2022                             :1:

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                       AT CHANDIGARH

207                              CRM-M-44349 of 2022
                                 Date of Decision: November 18, 2022

Tribhuvan Parnami
                                                     ...Petitioner

                                       Versus

State of Haryana
                                                     ...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY

Present:- Mr. Girdhar Arora, Advocate and Mr. Kuljit Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Tanuj Sharma, AAG, Haryana.

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J.(Oral)

The present petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for the

grant of regular bail to the petitioner in respect of FIR No.226 dated 28.05.2019,

under Sections 406 and 420 IPC and Section 3 of Haryana Protection of Interest of

Depositors in Financial Establishment Act, 2013, registered at Police Station Civil

Lines, District Gurugram, Haryana.

Learned counsel contends that the allegations against the petitioner in

the present case who is 65 years old are that the complainant had been induced by

the petitioner to invest an amount with him in monthly income scheme for which a

interest rate higher than being paid by the banks would be paid by the petitioner.

He submits that though the principal amount was not refunded by the petitioner

due to demonetization and recession in the market. However, he states that the

interest component was being paid regularly to the petitioner till September 2017,

whereafter the same was discontinued which is so mentioned by the complainant

in the FIR. He submits that the petitioner has been in custody for the last more

1 of 4

CRM-M-44349 of 2022 :2:

than three years and though charges were framed on 20.12.2021, out of 65

witnesses, none has been examined. Learned counsel submits that offences

involved are triable by Magistrate. Learned counsel for the petitioner further

submits that a gazette notification dated 19.12.2018 was issued by Government of

Haryana whereby four properties of the petitioner as specified in the said

notification were attached by the District Magistrate, Gurugram vide order dated

10.08.2018 to ensure return of deposits, Annexure P-7. He further submits that

petitioner has been granted regular bail by this Court in CRM-M-8903-2022, vide

order dated 12.05.2022, in view of the petitioner having been in custody about 03

years.

In support of his submissions, he places reliance on the judgments of

Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI 2011 (4) RCR

(Crl.) 898; Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Ramendu Chattopadhyay

2020(1) RCR (Crl.) 167; The State of Bihar and another vs. Amit Kumar @

Bacha Rai 2017(3) RCR (Crl.) 690, SLP (Crl.) Nos. 4322 and 4324 of 2019 in

case of Union of India vs. Sapna Jain; Nimmagadda Prasad vs. Central

Bureau of Investigation 2013(3) RCR (Crl.) 175 (paras 27 and 29); Y.S.Jagan

Mohan Reddy vs. Central Bureau of Investigation 2013(3) RCR (Crl.) 108

(paras 14 to 17) and P.V. Ramana Reddy vs. Union of India 2019(25)

G.S.T.L.185, (para 39 to 46) (Telangana).

Contrarily, learned State counsel submits that huge amount is to be

recovered from the petitioner. However, he is unable to controvert the fact that

petitioner was arrested on 13.08.2019, though charges had been framed on

20.12.2021, yet only 2 witnesses have been examined, out of 8 and that petitioner

has been granted bail by this Court in another similar case vide order dated

12.05.2022.

                                      2 of 4

              CRM-M-44349 of 2022                               :3:

             Heard.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular that

the petitioner who is 65 years of age has been in custody since 13.08.2019;

offences are triable by Magistrate; this Court vide order dated 12.05.2022 has

granted bail to him in another FIR, on the ground of him having been in custody

for about 3 years; 02 out of 08 witnesses have been examined despite the charges

having been framed on 20.12.2021; thus the trial is likely to take a considerable

time, his further detention behind bars would not serve any useful purpose, the

present petition for grant of regular bail deserves to be allowed.

Resultantly, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered

to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the

satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned and subject to him not being

required in any other case. The petitioner shall abide by the following conditions:-

1. The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

2. The petitioner will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

3. The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless is exempted by a specific order of Court.

4. The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which, he is an accused, or for commission of which he is suspected of.

5. The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly coerce, induce, threaten or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner.

6. The petitioner shall not in any manner misuse his liberty.

7. Any infraction shall entail in withdrawal of the benefit granted by this Court.

8. The petitioner shall furnish his address and mobile number to the Trial Court forthwith and shall not change the same till the conclusion of the trial and in case for any reason, the petitioner seeks to change any of the aforesaid, the same shall be done only with prior intimation to the learned Trial Court, stating the reason for the same.

                                         3 of 4

              CRM-M-44349 of 2022                              :4:

9. The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the Trial Court forthwith and in case, he does not have the passport, he shall furnish a specific affidavit in that regard.

It is made clear that in case of breach of any of the aforesaid

conditions, the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail as granted to the

petitioner by this order.

In view of the above, this Court makes it clarified that the

observations made herein above are limited for the purpose of present proceedings

and would not be construed as any opinion on the merits of the case and the trial

would proceed independently of the aforesaid observations.

November 18, 2022                                     (AMAN CHAUDHARY)
rimpal                                                   JUDGE
                     Whether reasoned/speaking:        Yes/No
                     Whether reportable:               Yes/No




                                         4 of 4