Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Avneesh Jhingan, J.
Rajinder Singh & Ors.. – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent
CRM-M-2520 of 2022 (O&M) and CRM-M-1504 of 2022 (O&M)
Decided On : 12-07-2022
Bail - Criminal Law - IPC, 1860, Passport Act, 1967, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Section 12 of the Passport Act, 1967, Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought regular bail in a case involving multiple sections of the IPC, Passport Act, and Prevention of Corruption Act. They were accused of involvement in a passport scam and were granted bail based on the nature of allegations, the duration of custody, and the likelihood of a lengthy trial.
Finding of the Court:
The court granted bail to the petitioners, subject to specific conditions, considering the completion of investigation, absence of recoveries from the petitioners, and the likelihood of a prolonged trial.
Issues: The main issue was the grant of bail to the petitioners in a case involving serious allegations under multiple sections of the IPC, Passport Act, and Prevention of Corruption Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court balanced the rights of the accused with the need for a fair trial and the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, ultimately granting bail based on the specific circumstances of the case.
Final Decision: The petitions for bail were allowed, and the petitioners were granted bail subject to specific conditions, including surrendering their passports and informing the police station of any change in their residential address during the trial.
JUDGMENT
Avneesh Jhingan, J (Oral). - Petitioners are seeking regular bail in case of FIR No.25 dated 23.1.2020, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, 1860, Section 12 of the Passport Act, 1967 and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, registered at Police Station Rai, District Sonipat.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on the same allegations two FIRs were registered i.e. FIR No.410 dated 28.10.2020 and the present FIR i.e. 25 dated 23.1.2020.
3. He further submits that in other FIR i.e. FIR No. 410 dated 28.10.2020, the petitioners were granted bail by passing the following order on 15.12.2021:
''These four petitions under Section 439 Cr.P.C. are filed seeking regular bail in FIR No. 410 dated 28.10.2020 under Sections 420, 421, 466, 467, 468, 471, 167, 120-B IPC, Section 12 of Passports Act, 1967 and Sections 7, 8, 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, registered at Police Station Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar.
The initiation point for registering the FIR was an information received from Community Policing SAS Nagar. The information was that verification of antecedents of Sarabjit Singh was not done properly by Passport Verification Officer-Constable Rajinder Singh (petitioner in CRMM-1185 of 2021). The applicant was not found residing on the address given in the application, his Aadhaar card and Matriculation certificate were found fake. Further, it was found that one Gurbir Singh had applied for passport by changing his name as Raj Kumar @ Raju.
Similar were the allegations against Sandeep (real name Ashish).
Sarabjit Singh, Gurbir Singh (real name Raju @ Raj Kumar) and Constable Rajinder Singh were named in the FIR. During investigation, Constable Rajinder Singh was arrested on 29.10.2020. He made disclosure of verification of 41 fake passports. He named Constable Sukhwant Singh (petitioner in CRM-M20814 of 2021). Sukhwant Singh was arrested on 2.11.2020, he disclosed name of Raman Kumar and stated that he used to provide the details of persons who had applied for passports on basis of fake documents and verification of their antecedents was to be done. Raman Kumar on arrest named Arvind Kumar Thakur (petitioner in CRM-M-11057 of 2021) and Gurminder Singh. Arvind Kumar Thakur was arrested on 2.12.2020.
The role attributed to him was that he acted as a link between the customers and the persons who had to arrange fake passports.
Kulwinder Singh was nominated as an accused on 17.3.2021 and was arrested. He was the person who applied for a passport through Arvind Kumar Thakur by giving his address of Zirakpur whereas he was resident of District Bathinda. The reason for doing so was that he was involved in an NDPS Act case.
It would be appropriate to note that challans against all the petitioners have been presented, though the charges are yet to be framed.
CRM-M-11057 of 2021 Mr. Vinod Ghai, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitionerArvind Kumar Thakur submits that the petitioner was named in the disclosure statement, no recovery was made from the petitioner,
there is no allegation that he forged any document. At best the case of the prosecution is that he was procuring clients in the scam.
Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for grant of bail. He submits that the petitioner was not only procuring the clients but was keeping major share of the money charged and was distributing the balance amount to other co-accused.
CRM-M-1185 of 2021 Mr. R. S. Warraich, Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that no recovery is to be made from the petitioner, he is a police official and there is no chance of his absconding.
Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for grant of bail. He submits that the petitioner was the master-mind and actually he made the verification reports without conducting actual verification.
The contention is that he failed to discharge his official duty.
CRM-M-20814 of 2021 Dr. Anmol Rattan Singh, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner su
The court considered the nature of allegations, the duration of custody, and the likelihood of a lengthy trial in granting bail to the petitioners.
The decision highlighted the importance of considering the custody period, completion of investigation, and the status of trial in granting bail, along with the willingness of the petitioner to adher....
The court considered the length of custody and the likelihood of trial delay in granting bail to the petitioner.
The court may grant bail considering the custody of the accused and the likelihood of trial taking time to commence.
The court considered the length of the petitioner's custody and the likelihood of trial taking time to conclude as grounds for granting bail.
Grant of bail based on completion of investigation and delay in trial due to awaited prosecution sanction for co-accused.
Prolonged custody without trial commencement may be a significant factor in granting bail, especially when further detention is unlikely to serve any useful purpose.
Grant of bail based on the absence of recovery, the likelihood of a lengthy trial, and the lack of criminal antecedents, without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case.
The court considered the period of detention, the petitioners' clean record, and the likelihood of a prolonged trial in deciding to grant bail, emphasizing the principle of proportionality in detenti....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
