Back
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
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.
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.
The court may grant bail to a petitioner in a case involving allegations of fraud and conspiracy based on factors such as custody period, recovery of a substantial amount, completion of investigation....
The court considered the circumstances of the case, including the petitioner's custody, repayment of the disputed amount, and the stage of investigation and trial, in granting bail.
Bail should be declined only in exceptional circumstances in cases triable by a Magistrate, unless there are serious allegations of the accused absconding from trial or tampering with evidence.
The court established that the duration of custody and the filing of a charge-sheet are critical factors in deciding bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
The court considered the circumstances, including the marginally beyond commercial limit recovery, in granting bail to the petitioner.
The recovery of the snatched vehicle and a country-made pistol from the petitioner, along with his involvement in other criminal cases, were considered as sufficient grounds to deny bail, emphasizing....
Active participation in online fraud, possession of multiple SIM cards and bank accounts used for fraudulent activities, and the risk of evidence tampering are grounds for denying regular bail.
The court considered the completion of the investigation, lack of specific injury attributed to the petitioner, and the likely duration of the trial in granting regular bail.
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
