Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 99

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Gurvinder Singh Gill, J.
Amit @ Mitta - Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (M) No. 3545 of 2023 (O&M)
Decided On : 30-01-2023

Advocates Appeared:
Pooja Jaglan, Advocate, Gaurav Gurcharan Singh Rai, Advocate

The court may grant bail considering the custody of the accused and the likelihood of trial taking time to commence.

Headnote:
Bail - Passport Forgery - The court granted bail to the petitioner who was accused of facilitating issuance of passports on the basis of forged documents, considering the petitioner's custody of about one year and the likelihood of trial taking some time to commence.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought regular bail in a case involving allegations of facilitating issuance of passports on the basis of forged documents.
Finding of the Court:

The court, without commenting on the merits of the case, granted bail to the petitioner due to his custody of about one year and the likelihood of trial taking some time to commence.
Issues: The main issue was the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in a case involving serious allegations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the petitioner's custody and the likelihood of trial taking time to commence as the basis for granting bail.
Final Decision: The petition for bail was accepted, and the petitioner was ordered to be released on bail.

JUDGMENT

Gurvinder Singh Gill, J. - The petitioner seeks grant of regular bail in respect of a case registered against him vide FIR No. 65 dated 26.01.2022 at Police Station 32-33, Karnal, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 166 and 218 IPC and Section 12 of the Passport Act (Sections 120-B, 201 IPC and Sections 7, 7A, 8 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 added later on).

2. The allegations, in nutshell, are that the petitioner had been facilitating issuance of passports to various persons on the basis of forged documents.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that he has falsely been implicated in the present case and that in any case, the passport had been issued after following due procedure including verification by the police.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel while opposing the petition has submitted that in the present case some of the police officials were also hand & gloves with other accused and that false verification reports have been made in favour of the applicants (applicant for issuance of a passport) even though the said applicants were not residing at the given addresses. Learned State counsel has also submitted that the petitioner stands involved in nine other cases and in these circumstances, do not deserve the concession of bail. Learned State counsel have, however, informed that the petitioner has been behind bars since the last about 1 year and that charges are yet to be framed and as many as 30 PWs have been cited.

5. This Court has considered rival submissions.

6. Without commenting anything as regards the merits of the case, but having regard to the custody of the petitioner, which is about one year and also the fact that conclusion of trial is likely to take some time inasmuch as the trial has not even commenced till date and as many as 30 PWs have been cited, further detention of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose. The petition, as such, is accepted and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document