Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mamta Yadav Alias Mamta vs State Of Haryana on 14 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037115
CRM-M-7249-2024 2023:PHHC:037115 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
201-1 CRM-M-7249-2024 (O&M)
Date of decision: 14.03.2024
Mamta Yadav @ Mamta ..Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ..Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
Present: Mr. Ramnish Puri, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Addl. AG, Haryana.
***
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J.
1. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.12 dated
10.01.2022, registered under Sections 120-B, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471
IPC, at Police Station Manesar, District Gurugram.
2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner is in custody for
last 2 years and 10 months. She was Director of the company i.e. M/s
Koshia Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. along with Rituraj Yadav and main accused
Parveen Yadav. Charges were framed on 20.03.2023, however, none out
of 106 witnesses, has been examined so far. She is involved in five cases,
in two of which, she has been granted regular bail. Reliance is placed on
the judgment of Hon'ble The Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir
Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012(2) SCC 382. The offences
are triable by Magistrate. Co-accused Rituraj Yadav, Kamal Singh and
Naveen Kumar have been granted regular bail.
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037115
3. Status report on behalf of respondent-State filed in the Court,
is taken on record. Copy thereof has been furnished to the learned counsel
for the petitioner.
4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that the
petitioner was a Director and actively participated in defrauding the
people. He is however unable to controvert the submissions made
regarding the custody, stage of the trial, the petitioner being on bail in two
cases and co-accused have been granted regular bail.
5. Heard.
6. Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of Maulana Mohd.
Amir Rashadi (Supra)had held that, "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." Reiterating in Prabhakar Tewari vs. State
of UP and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648, it was observed that, "The
offence alleged no doubt is grave and serious and there are several
criminal cases pending against the accused. These factors by themselves
cannot be the basis for refusal of prayer for bail."
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in
particular that the petitioner is in custody for last 2 years and 10 days; on
bail in two cases; co-accused have been granted bail; it is a case of
Magisterial trial; though charges have been framed on 20.03.2023,
however, none out of 106 witnesses has yet been examined; the trial is
likely to take a considerable time, thus her further incarceration would not
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037115
serve any useful purpose, the present petition for grant of regular bail
deserves to be allowed.
8. As a result, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is
ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to her furnishing bail/surety
bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned and
subject to her not being required in any other case. The petitioner shall
abide by the following conditions:-
(i) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence
during the trial.
(ii) The petitioner will not pressurize/ intimidate the
prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court
on each and every date fixed, unless is exempted
by a specific order of Court.
(iv) The petitioner shall not commit an offence
similar to the offence of which, she is an
accused, or for commission of which she is
suspected of.
(v) 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.
(vi) The petitioner shall not in any manner misuse
her liberty.
(vii) The petitioner shall furnish her 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.
(viii) The petitioner shall not leave the country
without prior permission of the trial Court.
(ix) The trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose
any other condition, as deemed appropriate
while releasing the petitioner.
(x) The petitioner shall appear before the police
station concerned on the first Monday of every
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037115
month till the conclusion of the trial and inform
in writing each time that she is not involved in
any other crime other than the cases mentioned
in this case.
(xi) The petitioner (or anyone on her behalf) shall
prepare an FDR in the sum of Rs.3,00,000/- and
deposit the same with the trial Court. The same
would be liable to be forfeited as per law in case
of the absence of the petitioner from trial
without sufficient cause.
9. It is made abundantly clear that in case there is any breach of
the aforesaid conditions, the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation
of bail as granted to the petitioner by this order.
10. In view of the above, it is clarified that the observations
made herein are limited for the purpose of present proceedings and would
not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case and the trial
would proceed independently of the aforesaid observations.
( AMAN CHAUDHARY )
14.03.2024 JUDGE
ashok
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037115
4 of 4
