IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Vikas Bahl, J.
Bhagirath Rai Goyal - Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab - Respondent
CRM-M-50079-2022
Decided On : 31-10-2022
Bail - Criminal Law - Sections 420, 406, 409, 465, 467, 471, 120-B IPC - The court discussed the allegations under these sections and granted bail to the petitioner based on the documentary evidence and the petitioner's health conditions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought regular bail in a case involving allegations of causing financial loss to the government. The petitioner argued that the allegations were false and baseless, providing documentary evidence to rebut the claims. The petitioner, a 73-year-old suffering from old age ailments and heart problems, had been in custody since 28.09.2022.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the case was based on documentary evidence and the petitioner's health conditions. It allowed the bail petition considering the petitioner's age, health, and the fact that the alleged offenses were triable by the Magistrate.
Issues: Delay in FIR registration, false allegations, health conditions of the petitioner, completeness of investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the petitioner's age, health conditions, and the documentary evidence presented to rebut the allegations in granting bail.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the petitioner was ordered to be released on bail, subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds and not being required in any other case. The court clarified that the decision did not express a final opinion on the case's merits.
JUDGMENT
Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral) - This is a first petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR no.26 dated 25.09.2022 registered under Sections 420, 406, 409, 465, 467, 471, 120-B IPC at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Patiala, District Patiala.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case, the FIR has been registered after a delay of 5 years inasmuch as the allegations levelled therein pertain to the year 2017 whereas, the FIR has been registered in the year 2022. It is submitted that the FIR has been registered on the basis of political vendetta. It is stated that in the FIR there are primarily three allegations levelled which are detailed hereunder:-
i) The petitioner, who was President of Municipal Council, Sunam, had got the repair work of government vehicle no. PB 13W 0955 make Balero done from Swami Auto Mobile Private Limited, Mahindra Company Zirakpur from 10.11.2010 to 22.11.2010 and also made the payment of Rs.35,199/- to the company towards its repair but as per the log book, the said vehicle was shown to be moving / working in the area of Sunam on the said dates and consumption of 149 litre diesel to the extent of Rs.5960/- was shown.
ii) From the office of Municipal Council, Sunam, one private vehicle no.PB13 AB 7345 make Ertiga was hired on tender basis for one year from the grand son of the petitioner, namely Chandan Goyal, for Rs.24,000/- per month with diesel 200 litres per month, being the lowest tender rate and it is the petitioner, who in connivance with other officials, from 23.02.2017 to 31.03.2017 had made the payment of Rs.28,800/-with respect to the usage of said vehicle regarding which no log book has been maintained.
iii) The open auction fixed on 19.06.2017, in which the highest bid was given by Manish Kumar for Rs.3,72,000/-, was cancelled and no auction was conducted with respect to the tender for the advertisements.
3. It is submitted that on the basis of the said allegations, it has been alleged that the petitioner had caused loss of Rs.4,06,760/- to the government. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that each of the said allegations is false and baseless and with respect to the first allegation, it is argued that no repair work was done on the government vehicle no.PB 13W 0955 make Balero from 10.11.2010 to 22.11.2010 and there is no record or documentary evidence produced with respect to the alleged payment of Rs.35,199/- to Swami Auto Mobile Pvt.Ltd. to prove the said allegation and there is no DDR regarding any accident involving the said Balero Vehicle. With respect to the second allegation, it is argued that a public notice inviting tenders was issued with respect to hiring of vehicles on rent for the Municipal Council and the said public notice has been annexed as Annexure P-2 and in pursuance of the same, three tenders were received and after the comparative statement of bid was prepared, Chandan Goyal was awarded the tender as he had offered the lowest tender rate of Rs.25,000/- per month with diesel 240 litres and even negotiations were carried out and thereafter, the tender was allotted to said Chandan Goyal at the rate of Rs.24,000/- per month with 200 litres of diesel per month. A copy of the said proceedings has been annexed as Annexures P-3 and P-4, respectively. It is further highlighted that the log book pertaining to the usage of the above said vehicle was duly maintained by the Municipal Council, Sunam, which fact is evident from the letter dated 22.02.2018 sent by Chandan Goyal to the Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Sunam and was duly received on 01.03.2018, in which a request was made for payment of the outstanding amount and the said log book was stated to be attached with the said letter but the same has been purposely misplaced by the prosecution. With respect to the third allegation, it is submitted that the tender of advertisements was held on 19.06.2017, but the concerned committee
The court considered the petitioner's health conditions and the documentary evidence in granting bail, emphasizing that the decision did not reflect a final opinion on the case's merits.
The court affirmed that under Section 437(6) of the CrPC, the magistrate's discretion in denying bail is contingent upon justifiable reasons, balancing trial delays against the need to preserve justi....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the grant of bail depends on various factors, including the nature of the offence, the presumption of innocence, and the need for a humane att....
The court granted bail to petitioners as they were not public servants, had no direct involvement in the alleged crime, and no incriminating evidence was found against them.
Second or successive bail petitions are maintainable when substantial changes in circumstances occur; however, public safety and the gravity of the offence must be prioritized.
The court reaffirmed that the presumption of innocence and the right to bail are fundamental, particularly when evidence is insufficient to justify continued detention.
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.