TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 1269X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n FIR No.161 of 2018 of the same Police Station, the Pettioner had never misused his liberty and was diligent in attending the Court till 18.12.2019, after which he was arrested, and there is no material to indicate that he had tried to flee away. This Court finds the Petitioner to be entitled to regular bail in the present case considering his long detention exceeding 6 months, and the fact that Challan against him has been filed long ago. He is, therefore, ordered to be released on bail subject to imposition of appropriate terms and conditions to ensure his attendance, which are left to the discretion of the Ld. Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned - Petition allowed. - CRM-M-22982-2020 - - - Dated:- 30-9-2020 - Hon'ble Mr. Sudip Ahluwalia, J. Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Harbir Sandhu, A.A.G., Punjab for the State. ORDER SUDIP AHLUWALIA, J. This is an Application for Regular Bail in FIR No.76 Dated 23.05.2019 under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 201, 477-A, 409 IPC and Section 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 registered at Police Station City Nawanshahr, District SBS Nagar. 2. Briefly, the allega ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder passed on 24.05.2019 (Annexure P-2), after he had already remained in detention in the said case for almost 7 months. Thereafter, the Petitioner was arrested and implicated in another case by the Central Bureau of Investigation, in which the allegations against him were that he in criminal conspiracy with the Head of K.C.Group of Institutes had withdrawn the Scholarship amount from vouchers handed over to the students for Scholarship Schemes meant for the reserved categories, and had thereby defrauded the exchequer in his capacity as Cashier in the Central Bank of India at Nawanshahr Branch. He was thereafter granted bail in the said case registered by the CBI by the detailed Order passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Cr.MP (M) No. 409 of 2020 Dated 11.6.2020 (Annexure P-4) after having remained in detention in the said case for more than five months following his arrest on 3.1.2020. As such, the contention of Petitioner is that he is being motivatedly framed in the present FIR drawn up against him virtually on the same set of allegations, which were the subject matter of the previous FIR No.161 Dated 21.9.2018, only with a view to detain him in custody for an indef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned from the Hon'ble Court and reconciled. Upon receiving of said report supplementary challan will be filed. 7. Ld. Counsel for Petitioner has further drawn attention of the Court to the fact that long after submission of the Challan on 22.5.2020 the sample signatures of the Petitioner were obtained as late as on 7.9.2020 and were thereafter sent for comparison to the Handwriting Expert. In this backdrop, the submission is that the Challan was filed against the Petitioner in a hurry just to keep him in detention artificially after he had been arrested in the present case only on the strength of a Production Warrant on 11.3.2020 just when he was ordered to be released on bail by the Himachal Pradesh High Court vide its Order of the said date, already referred to in Para 4 of this order. 8. In this regard, the Petitioner's counsel has cited several decisions in support of the contention that in case of economic offences where the investigation has already been completed, an indefinite incarceration of the accused is not justifed and his prolonged detention in this manner cannot be the indirect way of awarding him any punishment, which logically should follow after c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh, this aspect is dealt by the High Court in its impugned order, in our view, the same is not convincing. 26. When the undertrial prisoners are detained in jail custody to an indefinite period, Article 21 of the Constitution is violated. Every person, detained or arrested, is entitled to speedy trial, the question is : whether the same is possible in the present case. There are seventeen accused persons. Statement of the witnesses runs to several hundred pages and the documents on which reliance is placed by the prosecution, is voluminous. The trial may take considerable time and it looks to us that the appellants, who are in jail, have to remain in jail longer than the period of detention, had they been convicted. It is not in the interest of justice that accused should be in jail for an indefinite period. No doubt, the offence alleged against the appellants is a serious one in terms of alleged huge loss to the State exchequer, that, by itself, should not deter us from enlarging the appellants on bail when there is no serious contention of the respondent that the accused, if released on bail, would interfere with the trial or tamper with evidence. We do not see any good rea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 'Dipak Shubashchandra Mehta Vs. C.B.I. and Anr.' 2012(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 870 and by this Court in 'Giri Raj Vs. State of Haryana' 2019(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 530 and 'Anil Kumar Vs. State of Punjab' 2013(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 854 as also by the Delhi High Court in 'Suresh Kalmadi Vs. CBI' 2012(5) R.C.R. (Criminal) 556, in which it was observed - 13. Thus the requirements that have to be balanced at this stage are the seriousness of the accusations, whether the witnesses are likely to be influenced by the Petitioners being enlarged on bail during trial and whether the accused are likely to flee from justice if released on bail. As stated earlier, prima facie a case for offence under Section 467 Indian Penal Code is made out, the punishment prescribed for which is up to life imprisonment. Thus, the accusations against the Petitioners are serious in nature. However, the evidence to prove accusations is primarily documentary in nature besides a few material witnesses. As held in Sanjay Chandra (supra) if seriousness of the offence on the basis of punishment provided is the only criteria, the Courts would not be balancing the Constitutional Rights ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se passed on 18.12.2019, a copy of which has been filed on behalf of Petitioner in this case on 24.9.2020. Perusal of the said Order passed by the Ld. Special Judge/P.C.Act, S.B.S. Nagar clearly goes to reveal that the Petitioner while on bail was physically present on that date with his counsel when partial examination of PW1 Manoj Kumar (who incidentally happens to be again the complainant in the present case) was recorded and then deferred at the instance of the prosecution side itself. The matter was thereafter adjourned to 20.2.2020 for the same purpose. However, the Petitioner was in the meantime arrested by the CBI on 3.1.2020 in connection with the case started against him in the State of Himachal Pradesh, in which he was ultimately granted bail on 11.3.2020, on which date, he was arrested in the present case on the strength of a Production Warrant while still in custody. It is therefore, clear that inspite of having been granted bail on 24.5.2019 in FIR No.161 of 2018 of the same Police Station, the Pettioner had never misused his liberty and was diligent in attending the Court till 18.12.2019, after which he was arrested, and there is no material to indicate that he had t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
