Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manjit Singh vs State Of Haryana on 6 September, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117051
CRM-M-42641-2024 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
205 CRM-M-42641-2024
DATE OF DECISION: 06.09.2024
MANJIT SINGH ...PETITIONER
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA ... RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. Bipan Ghai, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Nikhil Ghai, Advocate
Mr. Prabhdeep S. Bindra, Advocate and
Ms. Malni, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Mr. B.S.Virk, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
***
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. Relief Sought
The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 483 B.N.S.S.,
has been invoked seeking the concession for the grant of regular bail to
the petitioner in FIR No.296 dated 30.06.2024, under Sections 406,
419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, 1860 registered at Police
Station Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra.
2. Prosecution story set up in the present case as per the
version in the FIR read as under :-
”A complaint No. 922 dated 06.06.2024 was
received at the police station through postal mail from the office
of the Superintendent of Police, Kurukshetra, which is as follows
To, The Superintendent of Police, Kurukshetra. Subject:
Application against 1. Basant Kumar (Mobile Number 98137-
43840) resident of Radaur, District Yamunanagar, 2. Parmod
(Mobile Number 7988959007) resident of Village Chorpura,
Tehsil Indri, District Karnal, 3. Assim (Mobile Number1 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 08-09-2024 07:14:59 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117051CRM-M-42641-2024 2
9802544347) son of Shri Satyawan Sahrawat, resident of
Kishangarh Manimajra, Chandigarh, 4. Manjeet Sahrawat
(Mobile Number 9915510075) resident of Kishangarh
Manimajra, Chandigarh, 5. Guri (Mobile Number 8437089914)
Regarding cheating and fraud of Rs. 35,00,000/- (thirty-five lakh
rupees) committed by the aforementioned accused in the name of
sending abroad. Sir, the applicant humbly requests as follows 1.
The applicant Shubham Chauhan, son of Shri Kuldeep Singh, is
a resident of Village Amin, Tehsil Thanesar, District
Kurukshetra, and is an educated, peace-loving person. 2. On
14.02.2024, I was at home in my village when I had a
conversation from my mobile number 9896961323 with the
number 8437089914, where the person introduced himself as
Guri. He told me over the phone that he is involved in sending
people abroad and that he only takes payment after sending
them abroad. I was convinced by his words and sent all the
required documents through WhatsApp from my friend
Saurabh’s and my maternal cousin Amit Kumar’s phone. After
reviewing all the documents, the accused assured me that he
would get visas for Australia for both of us and send us to
Australia. The accused then told me over the phone to deposit
Rs. 36,00,000/-(thirty-six lakh rupeesj at shop number 24 – A in
New Anaj Mandi, Pundri, with M/S Jati Ram Praveen Kumar
Aadti (commission agent), saying that he would collect the
money from the Aadti (commission agent) after sending us
abroad. He also assured that if he could not send us abroad, the
money would be returned to me. On 23.02.2024, I went with my
friend Krishan Kumar to deposit Rs. 36,00,000/- (thirty-six lakh
rupees) at shop number 24 – A in New Anaj Mandi, Pundri, with
M/S Jati Ram Praveen Kumar Aadti (commission agent), and
obtained a receipt on the Aadti (commission agent)’s letterhead
However, on 26.02.2024, the accused informed me over the
phone that he could not send us abroad at that time and
instructed me to collect the money back from the Aadti. I then
retrieved my money from the Aadti and returned the letterhead
2 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 08-09-2024 07:14:59 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117051
CRM-M-42641-2024 3
receipt to him. 4. But a few days later, on 04.03.2024, the
accused told me to go to Delhi Airport, where I would receive
the visa and ticket. Following his instructions, on 04.03.2024, I
went to Delhi with my friend Saurabh and my maternal cousin
Amit Kumar. Then, with the wrong intention of cheating me out
of my money, the accused told me to deposit Rs. 35,00,000/-
(thirty- five lakh rupees) at shop number 26 M/S J.VG Trading
Co. in Radaur Mandi, District Yamunanagar, stating that both
visas had arrived. He also told me that I would need to go to
Mumbai, where I would receive the visas for Saurabh and Amit
Kumar. I went to Mumbai with Saurabh and Amit Kumar.
Through my friend Krishan, I had the amount of Rs. 35,00,000/-
(thirty-five lakh rupees) deposited at the address provided by the
accused. At the shop number 26 M/S J.V.G Trading Co. in
Radaur Mandi, District Yamunanagar, Basant Kumar (mobile
number 98137- 43840), a resident of Radaur, District
Yamunanagar, who was the Adati, was present along with
Parmod (mobile number 7988959007), a resident of Village
Chorpura, Tehsil Indri, District Karnal, who was the
accountant, and Assim (mobile number 9802544347), son of Mr.
Sagawan Sahrawat, and Manjit Sahrawat (mobile number
9915510075), both residents of Kishangarh, Manimajra,
Chandigarh. All these accused conspired together, counted all
the money from Krishan, and provided a receipt on the
letterhead of shop number 26 M/S J.V.G Trading Co. for Rs.
35,00,000/- (thirty-five lakh rupees) to my friend Krishan
Kumar. The next day, the mobile number 8437089914 of Guri
was switched off, which made me believe that my Rs. 35,00,000/-
(thirty-five lakh rupees) were safely kept with the Adati at shop
number 26 M/S J.V.G Trading Co. in Radaur Mandi, District
Yamunanagar. However, when I went to shop number 26 M/S
J.V.G Trading Co. in Radaur Mandi, District Yamunanagar on
10.03.2024, I found the shop locked. On the same day, I went
with my friend Krishan to the house of Vikram Singh, the real
owner of shop number 26 M/S J.V.G Trading Co., in Village
3 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 08-09-2024 07:14:59 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117051
CRM-M-42641-2024 4
Hadtan, Radaur Mandi, District Yamunanagar. Vikram Singh
informed me that he was the actual owner of the shop and that
Basant Kumar and Parmod Kumar, along with the other
accused, had conspired to create a fake letterhead of his shop
and pretended to be the owners, thereby cheating me out of Rs.
35,00,000/- (thirty-five lakh rupees). Vikram Singh called Basant
Kumar, Parmod Kumar, and Assim to his home in Village
Hadtan on 11.03.2024. Everyone sat together and held a
meeting (panchayat). During this meeting, Assim, through one of
his friends, reported to Dial 112 that he had been kidnapped.
Shortly afterward, the police arrived, and everyone present was
called to the Kheri Lakha Singh police post. The next day, on
12.03.2024, a panchayat was held at the police post, during
which the accused returned Rs. 3,85,000/- to me. In this meeting,
the accused asked for time until 27.03.2024 to return all the
money, with the responsibility for ensuring payment taken by
Surender, the Sarpanch of Lavana village. On 19.03.2024,
Basant Kumar’s son Sahil transferred Rs. 1,00,000/- to my bank
account, and on the next day, 20.03.2024, Rs. 1,12,000/- was
given to me. After this, on 27.03.2024, all the accused and
Surender, the Sarpanch of Lavana village who had taken
responsibility for payment, started making excuses over the
phone. Subsequently, I filed a complaint, No. 166-KB, оп
04.04.2024 with the Superintendent of Police, Kurukshetra. The
Economic Cell, Kurukshetra summoned the accused, and they
promised to resolve the matter by 06.05.2024. They also
provided an affidavit on 19.04.2024, including two checks: one
for Rs. 10,00,000/- dated 20.05.2024, and another for Rs.
13,20,000/- dated 25.05.2024. When I presented the first check
at the bank on 20.05.2024, it bounced on 21.05.2024. The
second check, which I deposited on 30.05.2024, also bounced.
All the accused conspired to defraud me by pretending to secure
an Australian visa and sending me abroad. They created a fake
letterhead, provided me with a receipt for Rs. 35,00,000/- and
deceived me. I suspect that Assim, son of Mr. Satyawan
4 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 08-09-2024 07:14:59 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117051
CRM-M-42641-2024 5
Sahrawat, residing in Kishangarh, Manimajra, Chandigarh, was
impersonating Guri and communicating with me through phone
number 8437089914. I have documents related to this
application which I can present upon request. Request:
Therefore, I request that considering the above facts, strict legal
action be taken against the accused by a competent officer, and
my money be recovered from the accused, so that the common
man’s faith in the administration remains intact.’
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 and there is
no direct evidence to connect the petitioner with the alleged fraud. The
main accused Pramod Kumar and Manjeet Sahrawat have already been
arrested. He submits that the allegations are almost similar to the co-
accused Assim to whom this Court has already granted concession of
anticipatory bail vide order dated 23.08.2024 passed in CRM-M-
40755-2024. He further submits that whatever allegations levelled
against the petitioner have been settled by the petitioner with the
complainant-Shubham Chauhan and an affidavit dated 16.07.2024 to
that effect has been attached as Annexure P-6 and receipt dated
27.04.2024 has been annexed as Annexure P-4, as per the same, Manjit
Singh states that he has to pay Rs. 5,80,000/- (which came to his share)
to the complainant and that amount has been paid to the complainant-
Shubham Chauhan which can be made out from the narration of the
facts mentioned in the affidavit given by the complainant. He has
further argued that the antecedents of the petitioner are clean. He
5 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 08-09-2024 07:14:59 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117051
CRM-M-42641-2024 6
submits that no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the
petitioner behind the bars as conclusion of trial would take long time.
On behalf of the State
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 1 month and 18
days.
Learned State Counsel on instructions from the
Investigating Officer opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail as the
challan has not been presented so far, therefore, the custodial
interrogation of the petitioner is required and necessary for thorough
investigation in the matter.
4. Analysis
From the above case it can be culled out that the main
accused persons have already been arrested; the petitioner has
compromised the matter with the complainant and to that effect
affidavit is available on record; his antecedents are clean, meaning
thereby he is not a habitual offender, similarly situated co-accused has
already been granted concession of anticipatory bail by this Court, 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, even challan is not presented so far, which
is sufficient for this Court to infer that the conclusion of trial is likely
to take considerable time and detaining the petitioner behind the bars
for an indefinite period would solve no purpose.
6 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 08-09-2024 07:14:59 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117051
CRM-M-42641-2024 7
Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of the Apex
Court rendered in “Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh and
another”, 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, wherein it has been held
that the grant of bail is a general rule and putting persons in jail or in
prison or in correction home is an exception. Relevant paras of the said
judgment is reproduced as under:-
“2. A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the
presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is
believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are
instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been
placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but
that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental
postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important
facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the
general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a
correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is
an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles
appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and
more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods.
This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to
our society.
3. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely
the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the
exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large
number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High
Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to
introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right
thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case.
4. While so introspecting, among the factors that need to be
considered is whether the accused was arrested during
investigations when that person perhaps has the best
opportunity to tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses.
7 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 08-09-2024 07:14:59 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117051
CRM-M-42641-2024 8
If the investigating officer does not find it necessary to arrest an
accused person during investigations, a strong case should be
made out for placing that person in judicial custody after a
charge sheet is filed. Similarly, it is important to ascertain
whether the accused was participating in the investigations to
the satisfaction of the investigating officer and was not
absconding or not appearing when required by the investigating
officer. Surely, if an accused is not hiding from the investigating
officer or is hiding due to some genuine and expressed fear of
being victimised, it would be a factor that a judge would need to
consider in an appropriate case. It is also necessary for the
judge to consider whether the accused is a first-time offender or
has been accused of other offences and if so, the nature of such
offences and his or her general conduct. The poverty or the
deemed indigent status of an accused is also an extremely
important factor and even Parliament has taken notice of it by
incorporating an Explanation to section 436 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973. An equally soft approach to
incarceration has been taken by Parliament by inserting section
436A in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
5. To put it shortly, a humane attitude is required to be adopted
by a judge, while dealing with an application for remanding a
suspect or an accused person to police custody or judicial
custody. There are several reasons for this including
maintaining the dignity of an accused person, howsoever poor
that person might be, the requirements of Article 21 of the
Constitution and the fact that there is enormous overcrowding in
prisons, leading to social and other problems as noticed by this
Court in In Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, 2017(4)
RCR (Criminal) 416: 2017(5) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.)
408 : (2017) 10 SCC 658
6. The historical background of the provision for bail has been
elaborately and lucidly explained in a recent decision delivered
in Nikesh Tara chand Shah v. Union of India, 2017 (13) SCALE
609 going back to the days of the Magna Carta. In that decision,
8 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 08-09-2024 07:14:59 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117051
CRM-M-42641-2024 9
reference was made to Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab,
(1980) 2 SCC 565 in which it is observed that it was held way
back in Nagendra v. King-Emperor, AIR 1924 Calcutta 476 that
bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. Reference was also
made to Emperor v. Hutchinson, AIR 1931 Allahabad 356
wherein it was observed that grant of bail is the rule and refusal
is the exception. The provision for bail is therefore age-old and
the liberal interpretation to the provision for bail is almost a
century old, going back to colonial days.
7. However, we should not be understood to mean that bail
should be granted in every case. The grant or refusal of bail is
entirely within the discretion of the judge hearing the matter and
though that discretion is unfettered, it must be exercised
judiciously and in a humane manner and compassionately. Also,
conditions for the grant of bail ought not to be so strict as to be
incapable of compliance, thereby making the grant of bail
illusory.”
Therefore, to elucidate further, this Court is conscious of
the fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of
reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. This constitutional right cannot be denied to the
accused as is the mandate of the Apex court in “Hussainara Khatoon
and ors (IV) v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna”, (1980) 1 SCC
98. Besides this, reference can be drawn upon that pre-conviction
period of the under-trials should be as short as possible keeping in view
the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of
conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable
apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat
to the complainant.
9 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 08-09-2024 07:14:59 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117051
CRM-M-42641-2024 10
5. Decision:
In view of the aforesaid discussions made hereinabove, the
petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail on his furnishing
bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty
Magistrate, concerned.
However, it is made clear that anything stated hereinabove
shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the
case.
The petition in the aforesaid terms stands allowed.
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
JUDGE
06.09.2024
anuradha
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
10 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 08-09-2024 07:14:59 :::