Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Avneesh Jhingan, J.
Jayant Singh - Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana - Respondent
CRM-M-46474-2022 (O&M)
Decided On : 14-10-2022
Bail - Indian Penal Code, Passport Act, Information Technology Act - 120-B, 198, 201, 420, 467, 468, 471, 474, 12(1) B of Passport Act, 66-C, 66-D of Information Technology Act
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought bail in a case involving multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code, Passport Act, and Information Technology Act. The court granted bail based on the petitioner's willingness to adhere to specific conditions and the fact that co-accused with similar allegations were granted bail.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's custody period, completion of investigation, and the granting of bail to co-accused warranted the grant of bail, subject to specific conditions.
Issues: The main issue was the grant of bail to the petitioner, considering the nature of the allegations and the status of the investigation and trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the petitioner's willingness to adhere to specific conditions, the completion of investigation, the likelihood of a prolonged trial, and the granting of bail to co-accused with similar allegations.
Final Decision: The petitioner was granted bail subject to specific conditions and the observations made were not an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The pending applications were rendered infructuous.
JUDGMENT
Avneesh Jhingan , J.(Oral) - This petition is filed seeking regular bail in FIR No. 450, dated 2nd October, 2020, under Sections 120-B, 198, 201, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 474 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 12(1) B of Passport Act and Section 66-C and 66-D of Information Technology Act, registered at Police Station City Tohana, District Fatehabad.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner claims parity with co-accused Anil Bhatia who was granted regular bail by this Court on 1st September, 2022. This Court passed the following order:
'These three petitions are filed seeking regular bail in case of FIR No. 450 dated 2.10.2020, under Sections 198, 201, 420, 467, 468, 471, 474, 120-B IPC, 1860 and Section 12(1)(b) of the Passports Act, 1967 and Sections 66-C and 66-D of IT Act, 2005, registered at Police Station City Tohana, District Fatehabad.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this FIR is off- shoot of FIR No. 360 dated 20.8.2020 and the accused therein including the petitioners have been granted bail by imposing the conditions. Submission is that State had proposed the conditions and petitioners volunteered to adhere to those conditions. The contention is that bail be granted by imposing similar conditions.
Learned State counsel on instructions from Inspector Jagdish Chander submits that FIR No. 440 dated 13.9.2021 is off- shoot of FIR No. 360 dated 20.8.2020 and FIR No. 450 dated 2.10.2020 is off-shoot of FIR No.440 dated 13.9.2021. She submits that in case bail is to be granted, the petitioners be put to the same conditions as imposed in order dated 6.8.2022 while granting bail in FIR No. 360 dated 20.8.2020.
Order dated 6.8.2022 passed in CRM-M-37995-2021 is reproduced below:
''Vide this common order above mentioned three petitions are being disposed of as they arise from the same FIR.
These petitions are filed seeking regular bail in FIR No.360, dated 20th August, 2020 under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 474, 198, 201 and 120-B IPC, 1860 and Section 12 (1) (B) of the Passport Act, 1967 and Sections 7, 8 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 66C and 66D of the Information and Technology Act, 2000 registered at Police Station City Tohana, District Fatehabad.
On 9.2.2022 the following order was passed :-
[1] Due to COVID-19 situation, the Court is convened through video conference.
[2] These petitions are filed seeking regular bail. The allegations in the cases are that accused, in connivance with each other, were procuring or aiding to procure passports on the basis of forged documents.
[3] On 1st February, 2022, following order was passed by this Court:
'Due to COVID-19 situation, the Court is convened through video conference.
These petitions are filed seeking regular bail in FIR No.360, dated 20th August, 2020 under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 474, 198 and 120-B IPC and Section 12(1)(B) of the Passport Act, 1967 and Sections 7, 8 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 66C and 66D of the Information and Technology Act, 2000 and FIR No. 450, dated 2nd October, 2020, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC and Section 12(1)(B) of the Passport Act, 1967, both registered at Police Station City Tohana, District Fatehabad. Both the FIRs are off-shoot of each other.
The primary argument of learned counsel for the petitioners are that officials of police department, postal department, passport office, accused who acted as facilitators and some of the accused who had applied for passports allegedly by using forged documents were either granted anticipatory or regular bail. The said orders were not challenged by the State.
The submission is that petitioners in view of nature of allegations are ready to abide by any reasonable conditions imposed to ensure their presence during the trial. They further submit that no further recovery is to be made, investigation is complete and conclusion of trial will take time. The submission is that custody period of the petitioners be taken in
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 nature of allegations, the duration of custody, and the likelihood of a lengthy trial in granting bail to the petitioners.
Bail is a right and should not be denied unless justified by serious grounds; continued detention without trial infringes on personal liberty.
The court may grant bail based on parity with co-accused, considering the nature of allegations, lack of recovery, and the likely duration of the trial.
The court established that anticipatory bail requires careful consideration of the seriousness of allegations and the potential for witness tampering.
The court emphasized that bail conditions under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act must balance the liberty of the accused with the necessity of a fair trial, allowing bail given the minor financ....
Anticipatory bail can be granted if the accused is a first offender and there is no prima facie evidence of wrongdoing, subject to stringent conditions to ensure compliance.
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.
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
