Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rakesh Bansal vs State Of Haryana on 25 September, 2024
Author: Kirti Singh
Bench: Kirti Singh
CRM-M-35044-2024 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-35044-2024 (O&M)
Reserved on : 19.09.2024
Pronounced on: 25.09.2024
RAKESH BANSAL
..... Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA
..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH
Present: Mr. Charanjeet Bhalla, Advocate and
Mr. Gursimranjeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Gaurav Bansal, DAG, Haryana.
*****
KIRTI SINGH, J.
The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been invoked for grant of
regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.11 dated 18.03.2024 under
Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 of IPC and Sections 66(c), 66(d) of
Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 registered at Police Station
Cyber Crime Haryana, District Panchkula.
2. Succinct factual narrative relevant for the disposal of this
petition is that Dushyant Sharma-complainant, a resident of Faridabad and
owner of a food supplement shop, was deceived into becoming a director of
a fraudulent company, Tig Twag International Pvt Ltd. In March 2023, his
cousin, Pankaj Sharma, who works at ICICI Bank, convinced him to join the
company, promising a lucrative salary and profit shares. Using Dushyant's
Aadhaar, PAN, and eKYC, Pankaj and his associates, including Supreet and
Mukesh, opened multiple bank accounts in his name without his knowledge.
These accounts, opened in banks such as Yes Bank and AXIS Bank,
facilitated unauthorized transactions amounting to ₹145 crores. When
complainant became aware of these activities in July 2023, Pankaj
threatened him, warning him to stay silent. The accused individuals took
control of these accounts, and complainant was threatened when he raised
concerns.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present FIR
has been registered after a delay of one year and the petitioner-Rakesh
Bansal was not named in the FIR and no allegations have been levelled
against the petitioner. There are no records or documents that implicate the
petitioner in any transactions or indicate his involvement with the companies
mentioned in the FIR. The petitioner is neither a director nor connected in
any capacity with the companies in question, and no monetary benefits from
the alleged fraud have been traced to him. The petitioner is not connected
with any of the alleged companies and the petitioner has no role in opening
of any bank accounts or any transactions and he is not even a beneficiary of
any alleged transactions and there is no evidence in the charge-sheet which
suggests that the petitioner is benefited in any way. It is also submitted that
there are no allegations or involvement of cheating or forgery qua the
petitioner for creating the company or for opening of bank accounts. The
petitioner also faces serious health issues, including fluctuating blood
pressure, deteriorating urological health issues and other medical conditions
that have worsened during his time in judicial custody and his health is
deteriorating after his wife has passed away while he was in custody.
Moreover, the petitioner has fully cooperated with the investigation and
there is no risk of flight, tampering with evidence, or influencing witnesses,
2024.09.25 15:09 which fulfills the 'triple test' for granting bail.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the
judgments rendered in the cases of "Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI" (2012) 1
SCC 40, "P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement" (2020) 13
SCC 791, " Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another"
(2020) 11 SCC 648, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down
certain observations regarding release of accused on bail.
5. Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned State
counsel has filed the custody certificate in Court today, which is taken on
record. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner has undergone actual
custody of 03 months and 16 days. He further submits that there is one other
case i.e. court complaint No.RC-BD1/2016/E/0010/2016 under Sections
120-B, 419, 420, 467 IPC and Sections 13(2), 31(1) D of Prevention of
Corruption Act, is registered against the petitioner at Police Station CBI
(ACB), New Delhi. He further on instructions, submits that the challan was
presented on 18.05.2024 and charges were framed on 16.08.2024 and out of
total 50 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined till date. He,
however, submits that there are serious allegations against the petitioner,
therefore, he is not entitled to the concession of regular bail.
6. Heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the
parties.
7. The veracity of the allegations leveled against the petitioner
shall be established during the course of the trial. The petitioner has
undergone an actual custody of 03 months and 16 days and a complaint case
is registered against the petitioner. Admittedly, the challan was presented on
18.05.2024 and charges were framed on 16.08.2024 and out of total 50
2024.09.25 15:09 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined till date. The trial of the case
will take considerable time and no useful purpose will be served by
detaining the accused in custody.
8. As per the principle of the criminal jurisprudence, no one
should be considered guilty till the guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Detaining the petitioner behind bars for an indefinite period would amount
to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India 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".
9. Considering the fact that the petitioner is a senior citizen aged
67 years and his medical condition, which has aggravated during the custody
after the demise of his wife and the conclusion of the trial will take a
considerable time, this Court deems it appropriate to grant the relief of
regular bail to the petitioner, who is behind the bars since 01.06.2024.
10. Without commenting anything on the merits of the case, lest it
may prejudice the trial, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is
ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing adequate bail/surety
bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned learned trial Court/Duty
Magistrate.
11. The petitioner (or anyone on his behalf) shall prepare an FDR
in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- 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.
12. The petitioner shall also abide by the following conditions:-
(I) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, (if already not
surrendered) and in case he is not holder of the same, he shall
swear an affidavit to that effect;
(II) The petitioner shall not leave the Country except with the prior
permission of the Court;
(III) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(IV) The petitioner will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution
witness(s).
(V) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on the date fixed,
unless personal presence is exempted.
(VI) The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence
of which he is accused of, or for commission of which he is
suspected.
(VII) 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/her from disclosing
such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with
the evidence.
(VII) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of
accordingly.
(KIRTI SINGH)
JUDGE
25.09.2024
Kavita
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
