Punjab-Haryana High Court
Himanshu Alais Jangli vs State Of Haryana on 24 October, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:139957
CRM-M-51729-2024 - 1-
225 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
CRM-M-51729-2024
DECIDED ON: 24.10.2024
HIMANSHU @ HEMANT @ JANGLI
.....PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA
RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL.
Present: Mr. Pradeep Virk, Advocate and
Mr. Kamal Deep Sehra, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Surender Singh Pannu, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
****
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. Relief Sought
The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C., read
with Section 437(6) of Cr.P.C., has been invoked for grant of regular bail
to the petitioner in case FIR No. 422, dated 10.07.2023, under Sections
419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short
'IPC'), registered at Police Station City Ballabgarh, District Faridabad,
Haryana.
2. Facts
"To, the SHO Sahib, Police Station City Ballabgarh, Jai
Hind, Today, I ASI alongwith HC Ashid 3253, Constable
1 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:139957
CRM-M-51729-2024 - 2-
Surender 728, Constable Rahul 795 for investigation of FIR
No. 745 Dated 07.12.2020 under Section 148,149,216,323,
341, 307 IPC and 25-54-59 A. ACT, Police Station City
Ballabgarh were Present at Natthu Colony for investigation
that on dated 6.07.2023 the wanted accused namely Himanshu
alias Jangli and Manoj alias Billa sons of Chandra Prakash
Sharma resident of H. No 50, Natthu Colony, Ballabgarh
were arrested in the present case and at the time of arrest of
accused Himanshu alias Jungli the recovery of incriminating
documents in his possession one Aadhaar card of Shaurya
Veer son of Chandra Bhan resident of H. No. 1038/1, Krishna
Colony, Gurugram bearing no. 297028575992 in which the
date of birth is written as 08.10.1978 and a passport in the
name of Shaurya Veer whose NO. R6387111 valid from
18.01.2018 to 17,01.2027, issued from Regional Passport
Office, Delhi bearing photograph of Himanshu and an ICICI
BANK Passbook A/C NO. 106901518281 and a pen card
whose NO. BMGPV6884A and a HDFC BANK BUSINESS
MONEYBACK VISA card whose NO. 4577044311322633
VALID FROM 01/23 VALID THRU 01/28 and in the
possession of accused Manoj alias Billa an Indian Driving
License bearing NO. 4760/B/2000, which was of Manoj
Sharma son of Chandra Prakash resident of H.No. 29, Natthu
Colony, Ballabgarh was issued from the Authority valid from
31.08.2007 to 30.08.2027 and an Aadhaar Card of Ranvijay
son of Chandra Bhan H.No. 1038/1, Krishna Colony,
Gurugram bearing NO. 703175618751 in which the date of
birth is 19.07.1979 and a passport of Ranvijay on which the
photo of Manoj was affixed whose NO. N8110774 valid from
06.05.2016 to 05.05.2026 issued by Regional Passport Office,
Delhi and an ICICI BANK MASTERCARD CARD NO.
5344241069006736 VALID FROM 12/19 VALID THRU 11/24
and an ICICI BANK MAKE MY TRIP VISA SIGNATURE
CARD whose NO. 4073520145802014 VALID THRU 01/30
2 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:139957
CRM-M-51729-2024 - 3-
AND AN ICICI BANK DEBIT VISA CARD whose NO.
4838341069016648 VALID FROM 02/21 VALID THRU 01/28
and a HDCF BANK BUSINESS REGALIA VISA SIGNATURE
whose NO. 4572621501640620 VALID FROM 01/23 VALID
THRU 12/25 and an AXIS BANK CLUB VISTARA VISA
INFINITE CARD whose NO.4308340000692963 VALID
THRU 03/26 were recovered and taken into police custody
and the documents were verified from the family of the
accused at the house of the accused at Nattu Colony in the
present case and the school certificate of the accused in which
Manoj Sharma's certificate of 102 in which Roll no. 066935
bearing date of birth is 10.07.1989 and father's name is
Chandra Prakash and the certificate issued by Haryana
Board in November 2006 and Manoj Sharma's certificate of
BA Final 2013 issued by Manav Bharati University in which
registration no. MBU1010-39636 and Himanshu Sharma's
mark sheet of 102 in which Roll no. 10596 bearing date of
birth is 08.10.1988 which was issued by Mohali Board in the
year 2009 and BA certificate of Siddharth University Pilani
Rajasthan in which enrolment no. J10BAGEN00007307 and
serial no. 35199812 and Serial No. 16090665 of May 2011
were obtained and verified secretly as per the rules were
which used by the accused to cheat the public by changing
their identity and using fake name and address to cheat the
public after committing heinous crimes, using fake Aadhaar
card, pen Card, passports and other documents by preparing,
it has been found to travel abroad by deceiving government
and non-government organizations and using them
continuously. That as per the record of Passport, the accused
has visit Bankok, Dubai, Baali (Indonesia), Singapur and
Mlesiya. The accused have been declared as Proclaimed
Offenders by the Faridabad Courts after committing the
heinous crimes, the accused could not be arrested due to the
fact that the accused has changed their identity and made fake
3 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:139957
CRM-M-51729-2024 - 4-
documents to deceive the public. A reward of fifty thousand
rupees has been announced for those who have been declared
proclaimed offender by the Faridabad court due to fake
identity cards, Aadhaar cards and passports, evading the
arrest, the accused have been found guilty of the crime under
Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC by the documents
recovered from the accused and the verification of the
documents."
3. Contentions
On behalf of the petitioner:
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation
qua the petitioner is that he was found in possession of forged Aadhar
Card, passport etc., and has concealed his identity. He further submits that
petitioner is in custody since 11.07.2023 and nothing is to be recovered
from his possession. He relies upon the order dated 12.08.2024 (Annexure
P-2) passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-25981-2024,
whereby the co-accused Manoj @ Brahamdutt Sharma @ Manoj Sharma
has been granted the concession of regular bail.
On behalf of respondent-State
Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate, which
is taken on record. He prays for dismissal of the present petition on the
ground that the petitioner was found in possession of fake documents,
which were obtained by him to conceal his identity and evade his arrest
other multiple cases, meaning thereby he is a habitual offender.
4. Analysis & Conclusion
Be that as it may, considering the fact that in the present case,
the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 1 year, 3
months and 13 days, wherein investigation stands completed, charges have
4 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:139957
CRM-M-51729-2024 - 5-
been framed on 23.11.2023 and out of total 16 prosecution witnesses, only
two have been examined so far, meaning thereby, the conclusion of trial
shall take considerable time, this Court is of the view that no useful
purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind bars for an
indefinite period, which would curtail his right 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 number of decisions rendered
5 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:139957
CRM-M-51729-2024 - 6-
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
6 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:139957
CRM-M-51729-2024 - 7-
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 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
7 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:139957
CRM-M-51729-2024 - 8-
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 as 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-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 contention of the learned State counsel with
regard to the pendency of other case is concerned, reliance can also 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.
In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the petitioner is
8 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:139957
CRM-M-51729-2024 - 9-
hereby directed to be released on regular bail on his 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)
JUDGE
24.10.2024
sham
1. Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No
2. Whether reportable : Yes / No
9 of 9
