JUDGMENT

Sandeep Moudgil, J.

Relief Sought

This petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking the concession of regular bail for the petitioner in FIR No.35 dated 20.04.2024, under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, 1860, registered at Police Station Phase-11, District SAS Nagar, Mohali.

2. Prosecution story set up in the present case as per the version in the FIR reads as under :-

'Duplicate Application No: 414/P/SSP dated 19-1-2024 by Amit Gupta son of Hari Ram Resident of House No: 88 Phase 11 Mohali who is in Mazboon Jail; To the SSP Mohali Punjab. Respected Sir, Sub: complaint against forgery. We Amit Gupta and Tanu Gupta resident of house no. 88 phase XI Sector 65 Mohali is lodging a complaint against forgery by Sanjay Kumar and Poonam Kumari Resident of house no. 2646 phase XI Mohali (I Floor) & Permanently belong to Budha Bar Tehsil Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur, Mobile no. 9815855129, 9779099609 (Poonam Kumari no.6283297782) According to him he is designated as a head clerk in Punjab university in April 19. He assured us for a government, administrative job in university & till now there is no job description & took our original documents. Even he has taken Rs. 10,00,000 for the job purpose and even more Rs 8,76,900 for their own personal use. For the above mentioned total Rs. 18,76,900/- amount we transferred money through Bank and cash as well. I am also attaching some written evidence signed by him & his wife (Poonam Kumari) to repay the money. And as per their commitment they don't repay it back. So kindly request you to please look into this matter & do the necessary at the earliest.'

3. Contentions

On behalf of the petitioner

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that as per the alleged allegations, the petitioner defrauded the complainant to the tune of Rs. 18,76,900/- in the name of getting them provided government job in Punjab University. He further submits that the dispute is civil in nature which has been converted into a criminal matter. He further submits that in the present FIR challan stands presented on 12.08.2024 charges stands framed on 28.10.2024 out of 13 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined so far, which is sufficient to say that conclusion of the trial is likely to take time, therefore, prays for grant of regular bail to the petitioner.

On behalf of the State and the complainant

On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing on advance notice, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner, which is taken on record.

According to which, the petitioner is behind bars for 7 months and 23 days.

Learned State Counsel on instructions from the Investigating Officer and counsel for the complainant opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail stating that the petitioner is involved in many other FIRs, meaning thereby he is a habitual offender, but is not in a position to controvert the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. Analysis

Be that as it may, from the above discussion, it can be culled out that the petitioner has already suffered sufficient incarceration i.e. 7 months and 23 days, and counsel for the State has not produced any incriminating material to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence, and as per the principle of the criminal jurisprudence, no one should be considered guilty, till the guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt, whereas in the instant case, challan stands presented on 12.08.2024 charges stands framed on 28.10.2024 out of 13 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined so far which is sufficient for this Court to infer that the conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time and therefore, detaining the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period would solve no purpose.

Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in "Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another",