Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pankaj Goyal vs State Of Haryana on 30 January, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:012307
2024:PHHC:012307
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
107 CRM-M-374-2024
Date of Decision : January 30, 2024
PANKAJ GOYAL -PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA -RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI
Present: Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Bhupender Singh, D.A.G., Haryana.
***
KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL)
1. Through the instant petition, the petitioner, who is/was a
Director in the Company, namely, Blue Fox Motion Picture Pvt. Ltd., craves
for indulgence of this Court for his being enlarged on regular bail, in case
FIR No.490 dated 23.07.2022, under Sections 406, 420 of the IPC (Section
120-B of the IPC added subsequently), registered at P.S. Gharaunda, District
Karnal.
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. What constituted the bedrock for registration of the instant FIR,
was a complaint made by one Narender Kumar Tyagi (hereinafter referred
to as the 'complainant'). The brief facts of the instant case, as extracted in
the order dated 05.10.2023 (Annexure P-4), whereby, the learned Sessions
Judge, Karnal, has dismissed the regular bail application of the petitioner,
are reproduced hereinafter:-
"Brief facts of the case are that in 2017 Dharambir and Ashwani
1 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:012307
CRM-M-374-2024 2 2024:PHHC:012307
came to the complainant Narender Kumar Tyagi and told him about
scheme of Blue Fox Motion Pictures Limited, making payment of Rs.
2,50,000/- against investment of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Complainant was
also taken in a seminar of a company and upon this he gave amount
of Rs. 10,000/- to Bharat Bhushan and Sompal @ Som Dutt in
Sector-13 at Nirmal Kutiya Road. Rs. 1,00,000/- was also given in
the village on the asking of Dharambir and Ashwani. Rajesh and
Rakesh also made investment in the company. Upon demand, the
money was not given. On 5.10.2018, directors of the company made
settlement with the complainant of case in FIR No. 130. It was also
disclosed that their money has been invested in crypto currency.
Dharambir and Parmila gave complaint to the Superintendent of
Police regarding the criminal intimidation made by Bharat
Bhushan, Sompal @ Som Dutt and Ashwani. It was also alleged that
Bharat Bhushan used to extend threats to him through Mohali
Police, PS Dhakoli. Parmila settled the matter with the directors of
the company in case FIR No. 659. Parmila and Dharambir also
extended threat to him and it was stated he would be involved in the
case of outraging of modesty....."
SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in his asking for the
hereinabove extracted relief, has made the following submissions:-
(i) Neither the petitioner has been assigned any specific
allegation in the instant FIR, much less any allegation qua
entrustment of any money to him, nor he is a beneficiary of
the allegedly embezzled amount, nor the investigating agency
is seized of any concrete evidence to establish his culpability;
(ii) There is no evidence available on record, which may even
remotely indicate the occurrence of any transaction inter se
the complainant and the petitioner;
(iii) The petitioner has, merely being Director of the
2 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:012307
CRM-M-374-2024 3 2024:PHHC:012307
Company concerned, falsely been implicated in the instant
FIR;
(iv) Nonetheless, even if the allegations are taken to be a
gospel truth, yet the FIR carries allegations qua
embezzlement of Rs. 1 lac only, and as such, these allegations
are not so grave, which may debar the petitioner from either
seeking or reaping the concession of bail;
(v) Petitioner's co-accused, namely, Parmila @ Promila and
Dharambir, against whom complainant has levelled
categoric allegations, have already been granted the
concession of bail by the learned Sessions Court concerned;
(vi) Petitioner has suffered sufficient incarceration, as he has
been behind the bars since 13th April 2023;
(vii) Since charges have been framed recently on 04.01.2024,
therefore, conclusion of trial would take a sufficient long time,
and as such, keeping the petitioner behinds the bars would serve
no gainful purpose;
SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED STATE COUNSEL
4. Per contra, the learned State counsel has vociferously opposed
the grant of regular bail to the petitioner, on the ground that, the hereinafter
extracted paragraph No.8 of the status report dated 24/25.01.2024 clearly
speaks about the culpability of the petitioner. Furthermore, by drawing
attention of this Court towards criminal antecedents of the petitioner,
inasmuch as, he is involved in nine other cases of cheating, the learned State
counsel has prayed for dismissal of the instant petition.
"8. That as per investigation the present petitioner was Director of
3 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:012307
CRM-M-374-2024 4 2024:PHHC:012307
the company and played an active role in the commission of the
offence and also received amount from the investment made by
private persons in private company. It is further submitted that as
per investigation the account number 09391000007637 and account
number 5010126862002 HDFC Bank has been found in the name of
co-accused Dharamvir Singh and he has issued cheques which were
issued to the investors and same were dishonoured."
ANALYSIS
5. "Bail is the Rule and Jail is an Exception". This basic
principle of criminal jurisprudence was laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, way back in 1978, in its landmark judgment titled "State
of Rajasthan V. Balchand alias Baliay", 1977 AIR 2447, 1978 SCR (1)
535. This principle finds its roots in one of the most distinguished
fundamental rights, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Though the underlying objective behind detention of a person is to ensure
easy availability of an accused for trial, without any inconvenience,
however, in case the presence of an accused can be secured otherwise,
then detention is not compulsory.
6. The right to a speedy trial is one of the rights of a detained
person. However, while deciding application for regular bail, the Courts
shall also take into consideration the fundamental precept of criminal
jurisprudence, which is "the presumption of innocence", besides the
gravity of offence(s) involved.
7. In "Nikesh Tarachand Shah V. Union of India", (2018) 11
SCC 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has recorded the following:-
"14. In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC
565 at 586-588, the purpose of granting bail is set out with great
felicity as follows:-
4 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:012307
CRM-M-374-2024 5 2024:PHHC:012307
"27. It is not necessary to refer to decisions which deal
with the right to ordinary bail because that right does not
furnish an exact parallel to the right to anticipatory bail. It
is, however, interesting that as long back as in 1924 it was
held by the High Court of Calcutta in Nagendra v. King-
Emperor [AIR 1924 Cal 476, 479, 480 : 25 Cri LJ 732]
that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the
accused at the trial, that the proper test to be applied in the
solution of the question whether bail should be granted or
refused is whether it is probable that the party will appear
to take his trial and that it is indisputable that bail is not to
be withheld as a punishment. In two other cases which,
significantly, are the 'Meerut Conspiracy cases'
observations are to be found regarding the right to bail
which deserve a special mention. In K.N. Joglekar v.
Emperor [AIR 1931 All 504 : 33 Cri LJ 94] it was
observed, while dealing with Section 498 which
corresponds to the present Section 439 of the Code, that it
conferred upon the Sessions Judge or the High Court wide
powers to grant bail which were not handicapped by the
restrictions in the preceding Section 497 which
corresponds to the present Section 437. It was observed by
the court that there was no hard and fast rule and no
inflexible principle governing the exercise of the discretion
conferred by Section 498 and that the only principle which
was established was that the discretion should be exercised
judiciously. In Emperor v. Hutchinson [AIR 1931 All 356,
358 : 32 Cri LJ 1271] it was said that it was very unwise to
make an attempt to lay down any particular rules which
will bind the High Court, having regard to the fact that the
legislature itself left the discretion of the court unfettered.
According to the High Court, the variety of cases that may
arise from time to time cannot be safely classified and it is
dangerous to make an attempt to classify the cases and to
say that in particular classes a bail may be granted but not
in other classes. It was observed that the principle to be
5 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:012307
CRM-M-374-2024 6 2024:PHHC:012307
deduced from the various sections in the Criminal
Procedure Code was that grant of bail is the rule and
refusal is the exception. An accused person who enjoys
freedom is in a much better position to look after his case
and to properly defend himself than if he were in custody.
As a presumably innocent person he is therefore entitled to
freedom and every opportunity to look after his own case.
A presumably innocent person must have his freedom to
enable him to establish his innocence.
28. Coming nearer home, it was observed by Krishna Iyer, J., in
Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor [(1978) 1 SCC 240 :
1978 SCC (Cri) 115] that: (SCC p. 242, para 1)
"... the issue of bail is one of liberty, justice, public safety
and burden of the public treasury, all of which insist that a
developed jurisprudence of bail is integral to a socially
sensitized judicial process. . . . After all, personal liberty of
an accused or convict is fundamental, suffering lawful
eclipse only in terms of procedure established by law. The
last four words of Article 21 are the life of that human
right."
29. In Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration) [(1978) 1
SCC 118 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 41] it was observed by Goswami, J.,
who spoke for the court, that: (SCC p. 129, para 29)
"There cannot be an inexorable formula in the matter of
granting bail. The facts and circumstances of each case
will govern the exercise of judicial discretion in granting
or cancelling bail."
30. In AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE (2d, Volume 8, p. 806,
para 39), it is stated:
"Where the granting of bail lies within the discretion of the
court, the granting or denial is regulated, to a large extent,
by the facts and circumstances of each particular case.
Since the object of the detention or imprisonment of the
accused is to secure his appearance and submission to the
jurisdiction and the judgment of the court, the primary
6 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:012307
CRM-M-374-2024 7 2024:PHHC:012307
inquiry is whether a recognizance or bond would effect
that end."
It is thus clear that the question whether to grant bail or not
depends for its answer upon a variety of circumstances, the
cumulative effect of which must enter into the judicial verdict. Any
one single circumstance cannot be treated as of universal validity
or as necessarily justifying the grant or refusal of bail."
8. Also, in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of
Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No.2271 of 2010, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has insisted upon striking a perfect balance of sanctity of an
individual's liberty as well as the interest of the society, in grant or
refusing bail. The relevant extract of the judgment (supra) is reproduced
hereinafter:-
3. The society has a vital interest in grant or refusal of bail
because every criminal offence is the offence against the State.
The order granting or refusing bail must reflect perfect balance
between the conflicting interests, namely, sanctity of individual
liberty and the interest of the society. The law of bails dovetails
two conflicting interests namely, on the one hand, the
requirements of shielding the society from the hazards of those
committing crimes and potentiality of repeating the same crime
while on bail and on the other hand absolute adherence of the
fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence regarding
presumption of innocence of an accused until he is found guilty
and the sanctity of individual liberty.
9. Be that as it may, this Court has examined the instant petition
on the touchstone of the hereinabove extracted settled legal principle(s) of
law and is of the considered opinion that the instant petition is amenable
for being allowed.
10. The reason for forming the above inference, however, without
making any observation qua veracity of the allegations, emanates from the
7 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:012307
CRM-M-374-2024 8 2024:PHHC:012307
factum that:- (i) the petitioner has, indisputably, suffered sufficient
incarceration, inasmuch as, he has been behind the bars since 13.04.2023;
(ii) though the petitioner is involved in nine other criminal cases, however,
the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, just to exaggerate the
magnitude of offence(s), instead of registering a single FIR, multiple FIRs
have deliberately been registered, in respect of a single company; (iii) there
is no likelihood of the trial, which is indeed a magisterial trial, concluding
anytime soon, as charges are admittedly framed on 04.01.2024, therefore,
keeping the petitioner behind bars would serve no fruitful purpose.
FINAL ORDER
11. Considering the hereinabove made discussion, this Court deems
it appropriate to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.
Therefore, without commenting upon the merits and circumstances of the
present case, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be
released on bail on furnishing of bail bond and surety bond to the
satisfaction of concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/trial Court/Duty
Magistrate.
12. It is clarified that anything observed here-in-above shall have
no effect on the merits of the trial and is meant for deciding the present
petition only.
(KULDEEP TIWARI)
January 30, 2024 JUDGE
devinder
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:012307
8 of 8
