SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(P&H) 2928

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SANJIV BERRY, J.
Ramesh Kumar @ Ramesh Kumar Bali – Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
CRM-M NO. 20899 of 2023
Decided On : 02-06-2023

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Amandeep Saini, Advocate; For the Petitioner
For the Respondent: Mr. Mohit Thakur, AAG, Punjab

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - Grant of regular bail - The petitioner filed for bail in connection with FIR No. 107 under Sections 406, 420 IPC and Section 13 of Punjab Travel Professional (Regulation) Act. The petitioner claimed innocence, arguing a delay of 7 years in filing the FIR and asserting he is not required for further investigation. (Paras 1-6)

(B) Bail Application - When considering a bail application, the court assesses whether the accused is required for further investigation and if custodial detention serves any purpose. The petitioner's prior acquittal in another case and ongoing bail in a different matter were considered. (Paras 4-6)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was accused of cheating a complainant of Rs. 7,50,000/- on the pretense of sending her son abroad, but failing to do so and only partially refunding the amount.

Findings of Court:
The petitioner had already spent over 4 months in custody, the challan was filed, and no further investigation was necessary.

Issues: The central issues involved whether the petitioner could be granted bail considering the prosecution's arguments and prior history.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the criminal liability would be determined at trial and that continued detention would no longer be beneficial.

Result: Petition granted; bail provided upon conditions.

Table of Content
1. bail application under crpc. (Para 1)
2. arguments for and against bail. (Para 2 , 4)
3. details of the alleged crime and custody. (Para 5 , 6)
4. order regarding bail conditions. (Para 7)

JUDGMENT

Sanjiv Berry, J. (Oral)

The instant petition has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.107 dated 05.11.2022 under Sections 406, 420, of IPC and Section 13 of Punjab Travel Professional (Regulation) Act, registered at Police Station Sadar Nawanshar, Distt. S.B.S. Nagar (Annexure P-1).

2. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He submitted that petitioner is not a travel agent nor he is doing any work of sending people abroad. He submits the present FIR has been registered after an inordinate delay of 7 years. Investigation in this case has already been concluded and report under Section 173 Cr.P.C has been filed in Court. Petitioner is in custody since 14.01.2023. He further submits that petitioner is not required in any other case and as such prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

3. The learned State counsel has filed custody certificate showing the petitioner being in custody for 4 months and 15 days. The same is taken on record.

4. Learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the bail application by arguing that the petitioner has been actively involved in the crime as he had been aluring innocent citizens to be sent abroad and taking hefty amount from them and ultimately defaruding them. He as such prayed for dismissal of the petition. He, however, submitted that two other cases were registered against the petitioner out of which in one case he has been acquitted and in the other case he is on bail.

5. After considering the rival contentions and going through the record, it transpires that as per the case of the prosecution, the petitioner cheated complainant of Rs.7,50,000/- on the pretext of sending his son Jatinder Kumar abroad (Australia). Complainant paid Rs.7,50,000/- from the account of her daughter Roma Rani to the account of the petitioner by making three transactions amounting to Rs.2,50,000/- each but the petitioner neither sent the son of the complainant to Australia nor return the money. On repeated requests petitioner returned Rs.2,00,000/- and gave excuses for the remaining amount, thereby compelling the complainant to file the present case.

6. As per custody certificate the petitioner has already spent 04 months and 15 days in custody and he is not required in any other case. Further, the challan against the petitioner has already been filed in the Court meaning thereby that he is no more required for further investigation. The criminal liability, if any, of the accused-petitioner shall be determined only after the trial and no purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any longer.

7. In view of the facts and circumstances, without commenting on the merits of the case the petition is disposed of, thereby admitting the petitioner to bail on her furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned CJM/Duty Magistrate concerned. The petitioner is further directed to regularly appear before trial Court; not to leave the country without prior permission of the Court; and not to tamper with evidence of prosecution in any manner.

8. Any observation made above shall not be construed as opinion of this Court on the merits of the case. However, anything obse

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top