IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Avneesh Jhingan, J.
Amit @ Rd & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (M) No. 52038, 53479 of 2022 (O&M)
Decided On : 16-12-2022
Correction - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - The court allowed the application for correction of the headnote and prayer in the case, adding Sections 7 and 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which were initially not mentioned.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought regular bail in a case involving charges under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The case involved allegations of procuring a passport impersonating someone else and signing as a witness on passport verification.
Finding of the Court:
The court granted bail to the petitioners, considering the absence of recovery from them, the likelihood of a lengthy trial, and the lack of criminal antecedents. The court clarified that the grant of bail did not imply an opinion on the merits of the case.
Issues: Regular bail application in a case involving charges under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Ratio Decidendi: Grant of bail based on the absence of recovery from the petitioners, the likelihood of a lengthy trial, and the lack of criminal antecedents, without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case.
Final Decision: The petitions for regular bail were allowed, and pending applications were rendered infructuous.
JUDGMENT
Avneesh Jhingan , J. - This is an application for correction of head note and prayer in CRM-M-52038-2022 in FIR No. 222, dated 24th December, 2021, under Sections 120-B, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station Sanoli, District Panipat, wherein in the headnote and in prayer only Sections 120-B, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 are mentioned and Section 7 and 13(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 which were added later on are not mentioned.
Notice in the application.
Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG, Haryana appearing on advance notice accepts the same. He has no objection to the acceptance of the prayer of the applicant.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Office is directed to carry out the necessary corrections.
MAIN CASES
1. These two petitions are filed seeking regular bail in case FIR No. 222, dated 24th December, 2021, under Sections 120-B, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 7 and 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 added later on, registered at Police Station Sanoli, District Panipat.
2. As per the case set up, a secret information was received at Police Station Sanoli, Panipat that Vikas has procured passport impersonating himself as Deepak on the basis of forged documents. The role attributed to the petitioners is that on asking of co-villager had signed as witness on passport verification.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are in custody since 23rd June, 2022; no recovery was made from them and conclusion of the trial is likely to take time.
4. Learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail though on instructions is not in a position to dispute the role attributed to the petitioners.
5. Without commenting upon the merits of the case, having conspectus of facts of the case and that petitioners are not having criminal antecedent, conclusion of trial is likely to take time, the petitioners are granted bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned.
6. The petitions are allowed.
7. It is clarified that observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
8. Since the main petitions are allowed, pending applications, if any rendered infructuous.
9. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected case.
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 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 decision emphasized the consideration of prolonged custody and the likelihood of a delayed trial in granting bail.
The completion of investigation, absence of further recovery, and the likelihood of trial taking time are relevant factors in considering bail for an accused.
The court considered the nature of allegations, the duration of custody, and the likelihood of a lengthy trial in granting bail to the petitioners.
Anticipatory bail may be granted where the petitioner shows willingness to cooperate with the investigation and lacks direct involvement in the substantive underlying offences, subject to compliance ....
Granting bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. based on the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.