Back
2022 Supreme(P&H) 1234
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Avneesh Jhingan, J.
Dheeraj - Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana - Respondent
CRM-M-42842-2021 (O&M)
Decided On : 18-01-2022
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Bail Proceedings
Act Referred
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.201, S.406, S.419, S.420, S.467, S.468, S.471
Headnote
Regular Bail - Criminal Law - The court granted bail to the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a case involving allegations of fraud and conspiracy, considering the custody period, recovery of a substantial amount, completion of investigation, likelihood of trial taking time, and the petitioner's lack of criminal antecedents.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition seeking regular bail in a case involving allegations of fraud and conspiracy under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was alleged to have received a share of the amount collected in the fraudulent scheme.
Finding of the Court:
The court, without commenting on the merits of the case, granted bail to the petitioner based on the custody period, recovery of a substantial amount, completion of investigation, likelihood of trial taking time, and the petitioner's lack of criminal antecedents.
Issues: The main issue was the grant of bail to the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a case involving allegations of fraud and conspiracy.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the custody period, recovery of a substantial amount, completion of investigation, likelihood of trial taking time, and the petitioner's lack of criminal antecedents as the basis for granting bail.
Final Decision: The petition seeking regular bail was allowed, and the court clarified that the decision should not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
Mr. Sandeep S. Majithia, Advocate for the Appellant; Ms. Geeta Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
JUDGMENT
Avneesh Jhingan, J (Oral) - Due to COVID-19 situation, the Court is convened through video conference.
2. This petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is filed seeking regular bail in FIR No. 14, dated 24th June, 2021, under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC (Section 201 IPC added later on), registered at Police Station, Cyber Police Station, South Range, Rewari, District Rewari.
3. Brief facts of the case are that Baljit Singh moved a complaint to S.H.O., Police Station Cyber, Rewari. It was alleged that on 16th June, 2021, Nikhil Kumar from Jio Company made a call to him informing about the mobile tower scheme and Rs. 1,750/- were paid to him through PhonePe. Thereafter, Rajesh Chaudhary, posing as boss of Nikhil, called and Rs, 23,500/- and Rs. 19,800/- were paid to him on different dates and total amount of Rs. 1,12,550/- was deposited in the Axis Bank belonging to one Pankaj Gupta. The role attributed to the petitioner is that he got a share of Rs. 87,550/- from the amount collected.
4. Mr. Sandeep S. Majithia, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was not named in the FIR. From his alleged share of Rs.87,550/-, amount of Rs. 80,500/- was recovered. The petitioner is in custody since 26th August, 2021.
5. Ms. Geeta Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana opposes the prayer for grant of bail. She submits that Pankaj Gupta in his disclosure statement, stated that his account was used by the petitioner and thereafter petitioner was nominated. On instructions from HC Jatinder Singh, she submits that investigation is complete, charge sheet stands presented and petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Pankaj Gupta was never nominated as accused.
7. Without commenting upon the merits of the case, considering the custody period, the facts that substantial amount of alleged share of petitioner stands recovered, investigation is complete, conclusion of trial is likely to take time and petitioner has no criminal antecedents, he is granted bail subject to furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.
8. The petition is allowed.
9. It is clarified that nothing stated hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
