Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amandeep Kamboj @ Aman vs State Of Punjab on 14 January, 2025
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:004415
CRM-M-52675-2024 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
227 CRM-M-52675-2024
DATE OF DECISION: 14.01.2025
AMANDEEP KAMBOJ @ AMAN
...PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB
... RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. Nikhil Ghai, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. J.S. Rattu, DAG, Punjab.
***
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. Relief Sought
This petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS,
2023 for grant of Regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 61, dated
24.05.2024, under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, registered at Police
Station Vairoke, District Fazilka.
2. Facts
The FIR in this matter was filed by the complainant,
Gurwinder Singh, son of Baldev Singh, alleging that in the first week
of May 2018, Jugraj Singh visited the complainant's shop and
informed him that he was securing employment for his son, Sumedh
Singh, in the Punjab Police as a Sub Inspector through Amandeep
Kamboj, also known as Aman Skoda, who had connections with senior
officers and was facilitating job placements in exchange for money.
The complainant further claims that he inquired about securing a job
1 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:004415
for his close acquaintance, Raj Singh's brother, in the Punjab Civil
Services (PCS), to which Jugraj Singh, in the complainant's presence,
made a hands-free phone call to Amandeep Kamboj. During the call,
Kamboj assured that the job would be arranged for a total sum of Rs.
80 lakhs, with Rs. 30,000 to be paid as an advance and the remaining
Rs. 50 lakhs to be paid after the PCS results were cleared. According to
the complainant's statement, following this, and at Kamboj's request,
he, accompanied by Jugraj Singh, visited the residence of the accused,
Satbir, in Village Rangeela, where they handed over Rs. 30 lakhs.
However, when the PCS results were published, the complainant's
candidate was not included in the list. The complainant and his
associates subsequently approached the accused to demand the return
of their money, but the accused not only failed to secure the promised
job but also refused to refund the amount. Moreover, the accused
allegedly began threatening the complainant with false legal action.
3. Contentions
On behalf of the petitioner
It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner
that the present FIR has been registered based on the allegations that
Jugraj Singh received Rs. 30 lakhs on behalf of the petitioner,
Amandeep Singh, with the assurance that the son of the complainant
would be provided a job in the Punjab Police. However, it is later
stated that this amount was given to the co-accused, Satbeer, who has
been granted the concession of anticipatory bail by the Apex Court
vide order dated 10.09.2024 passed in SLP (Crl.) No. 40959-2024.
According to the allegations in the FIR, the sum of Rs. 30 lakhs was
paid to Jugraj Singh in May 2018, and it is only after a delay of six
2 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:004415
years that the present complaint has been filed and the FIR registered.
It is important to note that Jugraj Singh has not been
named as an accused in the current case, despite the claim that he
received the money from the complainant. Furthermore, Jugraj Singh
himself had registered FIR No. 80 on May 6, 2024, at the Sadar
Fazilka Police Station. In that FIR, he alleges that the petitioner,
Satbeer, and Sarv Satya Chauhan, the ADGP of Punjab Police,
promised to secure his son's recruitment as a Sub-Inspector in the
Punjab Police in exchange for Rs. 70 lakhs. The complaint further
states that Rs. 25 lakhs was paid to a police officer in March 2018, with
the remaining Rs. 45 lakhs to be paid later; however, no such
appointment was made for his son.
It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the
petitioner is being implicated in one after the another FIRs as many as
more than 40 FIRs, wherein, he has been granted either regular bail or
anticipatory bail.
On behalf of the State
On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing on
advance notice, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and has
filed the custody certificate of the petitioner, which is taken on record.
According to which, the petitioner has suffered incarceration for a
period of 6 months and 6 days, as of now. He prays for dismissal of
the present petition stating that the petitioner is involved in as many as
48 other cases of similar nature, meaning thereby, he is a habitual
offender.
4. Analysis
3 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:004415
Given the circumstances outlined above, it is clear that the
petitioner's co-accused, Satbeer, to whom the alleged amount is said to
have been transferred, has been granted anticipatory bail by the
Supreme Court in its order dated 10.09.2024 (Annexure P-20) in SLP
(Crl.) No. 40959-2024. Upon reviewing the case file, it is apparent that
by order dated 17.10.2014 (Annexure P-14) in CRM-M-35768-2014,
an interim direction was issued, stipulating that in the event of the
petitioner's arrest in any case registered before 17.10.2014, he would
be given a seven-day notice prior.
Furthermore, the petitioner has filed an application for
preponement in the petition bearing CWP-8332-2024 before this Court,
on the grounds that the respondents have once again registered
multiple FIRs based on similar allegations, with the intent to harass the
petitioner. While the petitioner does not oppose the investigation or the
allegations themselves, his grievance lies in the registration of multiple
FIRs across the entire State of Punjab. The application was
subsequently allowed by the Court through an order dated 04.07.2024
(Annexure P-18), wherein the respondent-State was granted time to file
a reply.
In light of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, it
is apparent that the petitioner is being subjected to the registration of
multiple FIRs, solely for the purpose of harassment.
The petitioner is behind the bars for the last 6 months and
6 days, as is evident from the custody certificate. The investigation the
present case is completed, as challan stands presented on 02.09.2024
and charges have also been framed on 17.09.2024, out of total 13
4 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:004415
prosecution witnesses non has been examined so far, which is
sufficient for this Court to infer that the conclusion of trial is likely to
take considerable time and therefore, detaining the petitioner behind
the bars for an indefinite period would solve no purpose.
Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of the Apex
Court rendered in "Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh and
another", 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, wherein it has been held
that the grant of bail is a general rule and putting persons in jail or in
prison or in correction home is an exception. 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 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
5 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:004415
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
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
6 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:004415
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 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-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 case is concerned, as per
the principle of the criminal jurisprudence, no one should be
considered guilty, till the guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt
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
7 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:004415
eventuality, strict adherence to the rule of denial of bail on account of
pendency of other cases/convictions in all probability would land the
petitioner in a situation of denial of the concession of bail.
5. Decision:
In view of the aforesaid discussions made hereinabove, the
petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail on his furnishing
bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty
Magistrate, concerned.
However, it is made clear that anything stated hereinabove
shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the
case.
The petition in the aforesaid terms stands allowed.
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
JUDGE
14.01.2025
sham
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
8 of 8
