Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vinod vs State Of Haryana on 24 October, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:139586
CRM-M-51536-2024 -1-
220
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-51536-2024
DECIDED ON: 24.10.2024
VINOD
.....PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA
.....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. Pankaj Bali, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Surender Singh Pannu, Addl. AG, Haryana.
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. Relief Sought
The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 483 BNSS, 2023, has been
invoked for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 295, dated
27.07.2023, under Sections 408, 420 of IPC (now Sections 316(4), 318(4) of BNSS
Act) and Section 66D of IT Act, registered at Police Station Kherki Daula, District
Gurugram.
2. Facts
Facts as narrated in the FIR reads as under:-
To, The DCP, Manesar, Gurgaon, Haryana. Subject:- Regarding
embezzlement committed by an employees of Firm M/s Sita Services.
Sir, It is requested that I am writing this letter on behalf of my firm M/s
Sita Services, GSTIN-06AIEPK1325J12]. We are authorized fuel
retailers. The firm has got license from indian Oil, which is a public
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:139586
sector unit and were situated near N.H. 8, Kherki Daula Toll Plaza,
Gurugram 122001. During the period of May 2023, we came to know
about the fraud committed by our employee Vinod. The particulars of
the accused are; Name: Vinod, Date of Birth: 71 September 1990, Pan
No. AMWPV3378G, Achar No. 4549-7319-5095, 99915-67729,
Address: C/Q Jagdish, VPO Talwandi Rana, 65 Hisar, Haryana-
125001. Email ID. [email protected]. Mobile No.
7087083049. The modus operandi of committing fraud is that; 1. The
firm has ICICI Bank account No. 002105501900 and IFSC Code is
ICIC0000021. Because of his role as well as responsibuities in the
firm, he was having access of our net banking credentials as well as
had reach upto our mobile device where the OTP received for
transactions. 3. That during the above said period, the above said
employee has transferred an amount of Rs.78,45,921/- trom the ICICI
Bank account of the above said firm without any authority. 4. Then he
gave remarks "IDFC Banie" with Intention to show the sume as inter
banking transaction in the other account, 5. That recently, while we
were matching the bank balance and we came to know that neither this
amount has been deposited in our IDFC bank account and nor the
same has been received in the account. It has been done by the
accountant or owner to save from any possible doubt. 6. That when we
further enquired from the concerned branches of the bank, we came to
know that the accused has transferred the amount in his personal bank
account vide ICICI Bank account number. No.242901504033 and IFSC
Code 0003875. 7. That we are capable to know each and every
transactions made from the bank account of our firm to his personal
bank account. 8. As and when the amount is deposited in his personal
bank account, the same then transferred to the different bank accounts
or persons. We do not know about the same. Annexure-A contains the
details of transaction made from our ICICI bank account in the bank
account of the accused. Annexure-B contain the details of bank
statement of accused, from which . the entries can be ascertained as
well as regarding the further activities. Annexure-C is the aadhar card
of accused Vinod Arora, Pan Card as well as the salazy slip, the
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:139586
accused last time had appeared in the office on 14th July 2023. Then
he had departed for some official work at 15:00 PM. Since then his
whereabouts are not known. We are not aware about is address.
Therefore, it is requested that we need your assistance in the matter. 1.
FIR be registered under the appropriate sections for the offence
committed. 2. To kindly provide assistance for keeping in an eve on the
transaction of amount as well as high volume transactions through
bank channels. 3. To give information to Income Tax Department, so
that for any verification of regarding any monetary transaction, so that
the information can be given regarding his identity documents with
regard to monetary transaction. 4. To kindly give information to the
aviation department as well as foreign ministry, so that he may not fly
abroad. Sd. Ashwani Kumar. Mobile No.9999014448, 9212405241.
Police Aetion: Upon receipt of above said complaint by post in the
Police Station, complaint no. 13227061231069 dated 27.07.2023 has
been lodged. From the enquiry in the application, offence under
section 408/420 of IPC has been found committed. Therefore FIR No.
295 dated 27.07.2023 has been registered under section 408/420 of
IPC in Police Station Kheri Daula District Gurugram.
3. Contentions:
On behalf of the petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the story of the
prosecution is based on false and baseless ground without any concrete evidence.
He further submits that petitioner has suffered incarceration of 9 months and 29
days, wherein investigation is complete and complainant stands examined.
On behalf of the State
Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner,
which is taken on record. He prays for dismissal of the present petition on the
ground that petitioner is a habitual offender, as he is involved in one other case,
therefore, does not deserve the concession of bail at least at this stage.
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:139586
4. Analysis
This Court is sanguine of the fact that the gravity of offence, if looked
into i.e., Section 408 and 420 of IPC, the petitioner has already suffered
incarceration of 9 months and 22 days, wherein investigation is complete, charges
stands framed and out of total 14 prosecution witnesses only 2 have been examined
so far, meaning thereby conclusion of trial shall take considerable time, no useful
purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite
period, which would curtail right of the petitioner for speedy trial and expeditious
disposal, as enshrined under Article 21 of the 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. Relevant paras of the said judgment is reproduced as under:-
"2. A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the
presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is
believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are
instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been
placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but
that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental
postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important
facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the
general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a
correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is
an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles
appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and
more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods.
This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to
our society.
3. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the
discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the
exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:139586
number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High
Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to
introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right
thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case.
4. While so introspecting, among the factors that need to be
considered is whether the accused was arrested during
investigations when that person perhaps has the best opportunity
to tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses. If the
investigating officer does not find it necessary to arrest an
accused person during investigations, a strong case should be
made out for placing that person in judicial custody after a
charge sheet is filed. Similarly, it is important to ascertain
whether the accused was participating in the investigations to
the satisfaction of the investigating officer and was not
absconding or not appearing when required by the investigating
officer. Surely, if an accused is not hiding from the investigating
officer or is hiding due to some genuine and expressed fear of
being victimised, it would be a factor that a judge would need to
consider in an appropriate case. It is also necessary for the
judge to consider whether the accused is a first-time offender or
has been accused of other offences and if so, the nature of such
offences and his or her general conduct. The poverty or the
deemed indigent status of an accused is also an extremely
important factor and even Parliament has taken notice of it by
incorporating an Explanation to section 436 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973. An equally soft approach to
incarceration has been taken by Parliament by inserting section
436A in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
5. To put it shortly, a humane attitude is required to be adopted
by a judge, while dealing with an application for remanding a
suspect or an accused person to police custody or judicial
custody. There are several reasons for this including maintaining
the dignity of an accused person, howsoever poor that person
might be, the requirements of Article 21 of the Constitution and
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:139586
the fact that there is enormous overcrowding in prisons, leading
to social and other problems as noticed by this Court in In Re-
Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, 2017(4) RCR (Criminal)
416: 2017(5) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 408 : (2017) 10
SCC 658
6. The historical background of the provision for bail has been
elaborately and lucidly explained in a recent decision delivered
in Nikesh Tara chand Shah v. Union of India, 2017 (13) SCALE
609 going back to the days of the Magna Carta. In that decision,
reference was made to Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab,
(1980) 2 SCC 565 in which it is observed that it was held way
back in Nagendra v. King-Emperor, AIR 1924 Calcutta 476 that
bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. Reference was also
made to Emperor v. Hutchinson, AIR 1931 Allahabad 356
wherein it was observed that grant of bail is the rule and refusal
is the exception. The provision for bail is therefore age-old and
the liberal interpretation to the provision for bail is almost a
century old, going back to colonial days.
7. However, we should not be understood to mean that bail
should be granted in every case. The grant or refusal of bail is
entirely within the discretion of the judge hearing the matter and
though that discretion is unfettered, it must be exercised
judiciously and in a humane manner and compassionately. Also,
conditions for the grant of bail ought not to be so strict as to be
incapable of compliance, thereby making the grant of bail
illusory."
Therefore, to elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the basic and
fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair
and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This
constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused as is the mandate of the Apex
court in "Hussainara Khatoon and ors (IV) v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar,
Patna", (1980) 1 SCC 98. Besides this, reference can be drawn upon that pre-
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:139586
conviction period of the under-trials should be as short as possible keeping in view
the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and
the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the
witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant.
As far as the pendency of other cases and involvement of the petitioner
in 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, while referring Article 21 of the
Constitution of India, this Court has held that no doubt, at the time of granting bail,
the criminal antecedents of the petitioner are to be looked into but at the same time
it is equally true that the appreciation of evidence during the course of trial has to be
looked into with reference to the evidence in that case alone and not with respect to
the evidence in the other pending cases. In such eventuality, strict adherence to the
rule of denial of bail on account of pendency of other cases/convictions in all
probability would lend the petitioner in a situation of denial the concession of bail.
5. DECISION:
In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the petitioner is hereby
directed to be released on regular bail on furnishing bail and surety bonds to the
satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned.
In the afore-said terms, the present petition is hereby allowed.
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)
24.10.2024 JUDGE
Meenu
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
7 of 7
