Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ankit vs State Of Haryana on 22 April, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053749
216 2024:PHHC:053749
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-18291-2024
DECIDED ON: 22.04.2024
ANKIT
.....PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA
.....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. R.S. Randhawa, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Baljinder Singh Virk, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
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 case FIR No. 103, dated
16.02.2023, under Section 3 of the Haryana Protection of Interest of Depositors in
Financial Establishment Act, 2013 and Sections 420, 201 and 120-B of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station Bhiwani Sadar, District Bhiwani.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that during
investigation the police officials could not detect any amount involved in the
incident, which could have been deposited in the bank account of the petitioner.
Further assertion is that even the allegations made in the FIR are taken to be true as
a gospel truth then also no offence is made out against the petitioner. He
vehemently contends that, to constitute an offence under Section 420 IPC, the intent
at the initial stage to cheat has to establish, which is totally missing therein, as there
is no detection of any amount, which could have been deposited in the account of
the petitioner. Moreso, the petitioner has not earned any benefit out of the alleged
transaction.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053749
3. Custody certificate of the petitioner filed by learned State counsel is
taken on record. He prays for dismissal of the present petition urging that the
petitioner is a habitual offender, who is also involved in three other cases. He
contends that the petitioner is guilty of duping innocent of people for lakhs of
rupees.
4. Faced with the situation, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
out of those three case in two cases he is on bail.
5. Heard, learned counsel for the respective parties.
6. Be that as it may, considering the fact that no recovery is to be effected
from the petitioner, who has already suffered incarceration of 10 months and 11
days added with the fact that after framing of charges on 10.01.2024, wherein total
20 prosecution witnesses have been cited by the prosecution and till date only six
have examined, which is sufficient for this Court to infer that conclusion of trial
shall take considerable time, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the
petitioner behind bars for an indefinite period, which would also violate the
principle of right to speedy trial and expeditious disposal as enshrined 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.
7. As far as the contention of learned State counsel with regard to
pendency of other cases is concerned, reliance can be placed upon the order of this
Court rendered in CRM-M-25914-2022 titled as "Baljinder Singh alias Rock vs.
State of Punjab" decided on 02.03.2023, wherein, this Court observed that
pendency of other FIRs involving the accused-petitioner cannot be a predicament to
consider the case for anticipatory bail or regular bail, as the evidence of the material
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053749
involved in those FIRs can be treated in those cases alone and not material in
instant FIR against the accused-petitioner to hold him guilty.
8. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the petitioner is directed
to be released on regular bail on his furnishing personal/surety bonds to the
satisfaction of learned Trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate,
concerned.
9. The present petition is, hereby, allowed in the afore-said terms.
10. 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)
22.04.2024 JUDGE
Sham
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
