Punjab-Haryana High Court
Somdev Khola vs State Of Haryana on 19 September, 2024
Author: Kirti Singh
Bench: Kirti Singh
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:123908
CRM-M-44616-2023 1
214
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-44616-2023
Date of Decision: 19.09.2024
Somdev Khola
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH
Present:-. Mr. Bhupinder Ghai, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Anmol Malik, DAG Haryana
*****
KIRTI SINGH, J.(Oral)
The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been
invoked for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.890 dated
26.12.2019, under Sections 420, 406, 120-B IPC and Section 3 of the Haryana
Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishment Act, 2013
registered at Police Station Model Town, District Rewari, Haryana.
2. The facts of the present case are that it is alleged in the complaint
moved by Parvinder alleging that Somedev Khola-petitioner and other co-accused
persons were operating company under the name and style of Solarway Marketing
India Private Limited having its head office in District Rewari. The company
assured 100% subsidy and cash back on installation of solar panels and batteries.
In the month of February 2018, accused/petitioner Somdev and his brother Prithvi
Raj Khola visited the house of the complainant and made the complainant as
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:123908
member of the network marketing company and the complainant, his known
persons and relatives invested Rs. 30,00,000/- but the accused supplied them solar
panel and batteries worth Rs. 10,00,000/- only and the accused had assured to
supply the remaining material in future. Later, the complainant as well as his 70
employees did a business of Rs. 70,00,000/- in favour of the company, but the
company did not supply them solar panel, inverter etc. In this manner accused
embezzled lacs of rupees of innocent public.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been
falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner has been in custody for 02 years, 01
month and 28 days, despite the investigation having been completed and charges
having been framed on 15.12.2022. The trial is progressing at a snail pace and out
of 42 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined till date. He further submits
that co-accused Prithvi Raj has been granted the concession of regular bail by the
learned trial Court vide order dated 20.01.2023 and co-accused Saroj has been
granted the concession of regular bail by this Court vide order dated 30.09.2021
passed in CRM-M-11964-2021.
4. Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. As per the custody
certificate, the petitioner has undergone actual custody of 02 years, 01 month and
28 days. He further submits that there are 16 more cases registered against the
petitioner, however, 11 cases are under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act, in which he is on bail and three cases stand cancelled registered in Rajasthan.
He further the charges in the present case were framed on 15.12.2022 and out of
42 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined. He, however, submits that
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:123908
there are serious allegations against the petitioner and he is not entitled to the
concession of regular bail.
5. Heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
6. The charges were framed on 15.12.2022 and out of total 42
prosecution witness, none has been examined till date. The petitioner has
undergone actual custody of 02 years, 01 month and 28 days. Further detention of
the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose and will be violation of Article 21
of the Constitution of India including the right to speedy trial, and is against the
principle "Bail is a rule, jail is an exception" as elucidated in the judgment of Apex
Court in "Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another", (2018) 3 SCC
22.
7. Deprivation of personal liberty without ensuring speedy trial is not
consistent with Article 21. While deprivation of personal liberty for some period
may not be avoidable, period of deprivation pending trial/appeal cannot be unduly
long. The Apex Court in "Abdul Rehman Antulay and others v. R.S. Nayak and
another", 1992(2) RCR (Criminal) 634 observed that Right to Speedy Trial
flowing from Article 21 encompasses all the stages, namely the stage of
investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and retrial.
8. As regards the submission of learned State counsel that petitioner is
involved in other/one more criminal case(s), reference is placed upon the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P.
and another, 2012 (2) SCC 382 in which, it is held that the facts and
circumstances of the present case are to be seen while deciding a bail application
and the bail application of the petitioner cannot be rejected solely on the ground
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:123908
that the petitioner is involved in other/another case(s). The relevant portion of the
said judgment is reproduced herein-below:-
"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."
9. The veracity of the allegations leveled against the petitioner shall be
established during the course of the trial. Admittedly, the charges were framed and
none of the prosecution witness has been examined till date. The petitioner has
undergone actual custody of 02 years, 01 month and 28 days. Therefore, this Court
is of the view that further incarceration of the petitioner would not serve any
purpose.
10. Without commenting anything on the merits of the case, lest it ramay
prejudice the trial, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be
released on regular bail on her furnishing adequate bail/surety bonds to the
satisfaction of the concerned learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. The petitioner
shall also 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
witness(s).
(iii) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on the date
fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:123908
(iv) The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence
of which he is accused of, or for commission of which she is
suspected.
(v) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the
facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to
the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall
be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.
12. However, nothing stated above shall be construed as a final expression
of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court would proceed
independently of the observations made in the present case which are only for the
purpose of adjudicating the present bail petition.
(KIRTI SINGH)
JUDGE
19.09.2024
reena
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
