Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajesh Chopra vs State Of Punjab on 7 June, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:081718
-1-
CRM-M-28917-2023
2023:PHHC:081718
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
205
CRM-M-28917-2023
Date of decision : 07.06.2023
RAJESH CHOPRA
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB
....Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. R.S. Rai, Senior Advocate with
Mr. K.S. Nalwa, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajiv Verma, DAG, Punjab.
*****
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J. (ORAL)
1. The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C., has
been invoked for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.06,
dated 06.02.2023, under Sections 13 (1)(b) read with Section 13 (2) of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended by P.C. Act, 2018),
registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, F.S.-I, Phase-I, Mohali,
District SAS Nagar (Mohali) (Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of
IPC and Section 12 of P.C.Act added later on during investigation).
2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has contended that the
petitioner is an attesting witnesses to the alleged purchase, whereas the main
accused are Sadhu Singh Dharamsot and Raj Kumar Nagpal and his son
Harpreet Singh are already either on regular bail or anticipatory bail. In that
eventuality, there is no occasion for the petitioner to be kept behind the bars.
3. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has produced the
custody certificate of the petitioner, which is taken on record, copy whereof
furnished to the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. He contends that
1 of 2
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:081718
CRM-M-28917-2023
2023:PHHC:081718
the petitioner has played an active role in the commission of offence and
therefore, does not deserve the concession of bail.
4. In the considered option of this Court, bail is a rule and jail is an
exception and it would also violate the principle of right to speedy trial and
expeditious disposal under Article 21 of Constitution of India, as has been
time and again discussed by this Court, while relying upon the judgment of
the Apex Court passed in Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131.
5. Since the challan in the instant case stands filed after
completion of the investigation on 05.05.2023 and no custodial interrogation
is required, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served
by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period, where he
has already faced incarceration of 2 months and 5 days as per the custody
certificate, as the trial is not likely to conclude in near future as charges in
this case are yet to be framed and 35 prosecution witnesses are to be
examined as on date and further investigation is also pending as per the
report of the State Investigating Agency itself, the petitioner is directed to be
released on regular bail on his furnishing personal and surety bonds to the
satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.
6. The present petition stands allowed in the afore-said terms.
7. However, it is made clear that anything stated hereinabove shall
not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
07.06.2023 JUDGE
Harish
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:081718
2 of 2
