Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vikas Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 30 August, 2024
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:112782
1
CRM-M-14211-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-14211-2024
Reserved on: 01.08.2024
Pronounced on: 30.08.2024
Vikas Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. Manish Soni, Advocate
for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Rajat Gautam, Addl. AG, Haryana.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections
309 21.08.2021 Kherki Daula, 380 IPC (Sections 381, 382, 411, 454,
Gurugram 457, 476, 120-B, 201 IPC and Section
25(1B)(a) of Arms Act and Section 7/8 of
Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 added
later on
1. The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up before this
Court under Section 439 CrPC, 1973, seeking regular bail on parity with co-accused, Dr.
Ashwani Kumar, Dr. Sachinder Jain Nawal, Dr. Gurpartap Singh, Sandeep @ Nitu
Sunariya, Amit @ Meeta, Ravinder @ Bittu Dahiya, Ajit Singh @ Ajit, Joginder Singh,
Dara Singh @ Dara, Abhinav Sharma, Gurpreet Singh, Chetan Maan @ Boxer.
2. At Annexure R-1of the State’s reply dated 20.01.2024, following criminal
antecedents of the accused are mentioned:
1. FIR No. 461/2012 Section 307, 353, 186-IPC & A.ACT Police Station Sadar
Jhajjar District Jhajjar
2. FIR No. 48/2012 Section 392, 411, 34 IPC Police Station J.P. Kalan New
Delhi.
3. FIR No. 36/2012 Section 392, 34 IPC Police Station J.P. Kalan New Delhi.
4. FIR No. 58/2015 Section 174A IPC Police Station Hari Nagar New Delhi.
5. FIR No. 49/2012 Section 392, 411,482,34 IPC Police Station J.P. Kalan New
Delhi.
6. FIR No. 166/2012 Section 302, 1208, 420, 34, 216 IPC & A.ACT Police
Station City Bahadurgarh District Jhajjar.
1
1 of 5
::: Downloaded on – 01-09-2024 03:21:07 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:1127822
CRM-M-14211-2024
7. FIR No.37/2012 Section 382, 411, 34 IPC Police Station Chhawla New Delhi.
8. FIR No.46/2012 Section 394, 397, 34 IPC Police Station Chhawla New Delhi.
9. FIR No. 67/2012 Section 382, 365, 34 IPC Police Station Chhawla New Delhi.
10. FIR No.84/2012 Section 302, 120B, 34 IPC Police Station Chhawla New
Delhi.
11. FIR No.58/2014 Section 147, 149, 333, 353, 307, 302, 120B IPC Police
Station Model Town Rewari.
12. FIR No.351/2014 Section 186, 307, 353, 411, 420, 483 IPC & A.ACT Police
Station Beri District Jhajjar.
13. FIR No.626/2013 Section 506 IPC Police Station Sadar Bahadurgarh District
Jhajjar.
14. FIR No. 153/2012 Section A.ACT Police Station Civil Line Rohtak.
15. FIR No.459/2013 Section 387 IPC Police Station Najafgarh New Delhi.
16 FIR No. 159/2012 Section 387, 336, 506, 34 IPC & 27 A.ACT PS Baba
Haridas Nagar Delhi.
17. FIR No.227/2015 Section 323, 452, 387, 34, 120 B IPC Police Station Baba
Haridas Nagar New Delhi.
18. FIR No. 153/2014 Section 452, 307, 506, 34 IPC & A.ACT Police Station
Najafgarh New Delhi.
19. FIR No.531/2015 Section 3 MCOCA and 384 IPC Police Station Najafgarh
New Delhi.
20. FIR No.500/2015 Section 25, 27 A.ACT Police Station South Dwarka Delhi.
21. FIR No.60/2014 Section 25 A.ACT Police Station Civil Lines Hisar District
Hisar.
22. FIR No. 222/2021 Section 419, 468, 471 IPC& 7/8 PC ACT Police Station
Sanoli Panipat.
23 FIR No. 302/2022 Section 174A IPC Police Station Shivaji Nagar Gurugram.
24. FIR No.309 Dated 21-08-2021 Section 454, 457, 380, 381, 1208, 411 IPC &
25(1b)(a) A.Act & 7/8 PC ACT Police Station Khedki Daula Distt Gurugram.
3. Perusal of the file shows that earlier a petition (CRM-M-18189-2023) was filed and
the said petition was withdrawn on 10.10.2023, with liberty to file a fresh after one year
of pre-trial custody in case trial is not concluded till that time.
4. Facts of the case are being taken from the reply dated 07.04.2024, which reads as
under:-
“That before proceeding further with the present reply, it is
imperative to mention some brief facts of the case, which are that a
complaint was submitted by one Santosh Singh alleging therein
that he is working as Maintaining Project in Alpha G Crop
Management Services Private Limited, Sector 84, Village Sihi2
2 of 5
::: Downloaded on – 01-09-2024 03:21:07 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:1127823
CRM-M-14211-2024
Gurugram. They had collected money from customers for the
services rendered to them and kept the same at the office of the
company i.e. Flat no.1102 and 1702 Gurgaon. One Society Sectory
84, Kherki Daula, Gurugram. On 20.08.2021, while under
instructions to deposit the money in bank, they found that the
money had been stolen from the office. On the basis of above
allegations, case FIR No.309 dated 21.08.2021 was initially
registered u/s 380 IPC at P.S. Kherki Daula, Gurugram.”
5. Petitioner seeks bail on the ground of parity with co-accused, who are similarly
placed. The petitioner’s counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and
contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the
petitioner and their family.
6. Counsel for the State opposes the bail on the ground of massive criminal history.
He further refers to role of the petitioner, as mentioned in para 30 of the reply, which
reads as follows:-
“30. That the role of the petitioner-Vikas Kumar in the present case is that
he had received information from accused- Dr. Sachender Jain Nawal
regarding huge black money (in crores) kept in Flat No.F-1102 and 1702
at Alpha G-Corp Society. The petitioner entered into a conspiracy with
accused Abhinav Sharma @ Chunnu, Dara Singh @ Dhara, Amit @
Meeta, Ravinder @ Bittu Dahiya, Ajit Singh, Chetan Maan @ Boxer. In
pursuance of the conspiracy, accused Abhinav Sharma @ Chunnu took a
flat on rent in the said society. Thereafter, on 04.08.2021, accused Abhinav
Sharma @ Chunnu, Dara Singh @ Dharan, Amit @ Meeta, Ravinder @
Bittu Dahiya, Ajit Singh, Chetan Maan @ Boxer committed the theft of the
said money twice in scorpio vehicle. On the instructions of the petitioner
Vikas Kumar, the money of the first theft was sent by the above named
accused to Dr. Ashwani Kumar at Delhi. Further, on the instructions of the
petitioner, the above named accused handed over the amount of the second
theft to accused ASI Vikas of Delhi Police. The said ASI Vikas handed over
the said money to accused Sandeep @ Nitu on the instructions of the
petitioner. Further the petitioner has got recovered the amount of
Rs.4,12,00,000/-.”
7. Although, petitioner’s case is not covered because of the history and the petitioner
had got recovered Rs.4 crore 12 lacs rupees. However, an analysis of the above said
arguments, would lead to the following outcome.
8. Although there is prima facie evidence connecting the petitioner with the
commission of offence but this Court is not considering the case for quashing of FIR,
framing of charges or final trial but only for the purpose of bail. As per para 31 of the
reply, the petitioner was arrested on 15.12.2022. It means the petitioner is in custody for
more than 01 year & 08 months. Coupled with the fact that similarly placed co-accused
have been granted bail, the criminal history is not being considered as a reason for
denying bail, subject to the compliance of terms and conditions mentioned in this order.
3
3 of 5
::: Downloaded on – 01-09-2024 03:21:07 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:112782
4
CRM-M-14211-2024
9. Without commenting on the case’s merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar
to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for bail.
This order shall come into force from the time it is uploaded on this Court’s official
webpage.
10. Given above, provided the petitioner is not required in any other case, the
petitioner shall be released on bail in the FIR captioned above subject to furnishing bonds
to the satisfaction of the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest
Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accepting the surety, the concerned Court must
be satisfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused.
11. While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioner shall mention the
following personal identification details:
1. AADHAR number
2. Passport number (If available) and when the
attesting officer/court considers it appropriate or
considers the accused a flight risk.
3. Mobile number (If available)
4. E-Mail id (If available)
12. This order is subject to the petitioner’s complying with the following terms. The
petitioner shall abide by all statutory bond conditions and appear before the concerned
Court(s) on all dates. The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence, influence,
browbeat, pressurize, induce, threaten, or promise, directly or indirectly, any witnesses,
Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the
case or dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police or the Court.
13. Given the nature of the allegations and the other circumstances peculiar to this
case, the petitioner shall not enter the property, workplace, and residence of the victim
until the statements of all non-official and informal witnesses in the trial are recorded.
This Court is imposing this condition to rule out any attempt by the accused to
incapacitate, influence, or cause any discomfort to the victim. Reference be made to
Vikram Singh v Central Bureau of Investigation, 2018 All SCR (Crl.) 458); and Aparna
Bhatt v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021:INSC:192, 2021 SCC Online SC 230.
14. Given the background of allegations against the petitioner, it becomes paramount
to protect the victim, and their family members, as well as the members of society, and
incapacitating the accused would be one of the primary options until the filing of the
closure report or discharge, or acquittal. Consequently, it would be appropriate to restrict
the possession of firearm(s). [This restriction is being imposed based on the
preponderance of evidence of probability and not of evidence of certainty, i.e., beyond
reasonable doubt; and as such, it is not to be construed as an intermediate sanction].
Given the nature of the allegations and the other circumstances peculiar to this case, the
petitioner shall surrender all weapons, firearms, and ammunition, if any, along with the
4
4 of 5
::: Downloaded on – 01-09-2024 03:21:07 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:112782
5
CRM-M-14211-2024
arms license to the concerned authority within fifteen days from release from prison and
inform the Investigator about the compliance. However, subject to the Indian Arms Act,
1959, the petitioner shall be entitled to renew and take it back in case of acquittal in this
case, provided otherwise permissible in the concerned rules. Restricting firearms would
instill confidence in the victim(s), their families, and society; it would also restrain the
accused from influencing the witnesses and repeating the offense.
15. The conditions mentioned above imposed by this court are to endeavor to reform
and ensure the accused does not repeat the offense and also to block the menace of drug
abuse. In Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022:INSC:735 [Para 28], Writ
Petition (Criminal) No 279 of 2022, Para 29, decided on July 20, 2022, A Three-Judge
bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court holds that “The bail conditions imposed by the Court
must not only have a nexus to the purpose that they seek to serve but must also be
proportional to the purpose of imposing them. The courts, while imposing bail conditions
must balance the liberty of the accused and the necessity of a fair trial. While doing so,
conditions that would result in the deprivation of rights and liberties must be eschewed.”
16. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the
case’s merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.
17. A certified copy of this order would not be needed for furnishing bonds, and any
Advocate for the Petitioner can download this order along with case status from the
official web page of this Court and attest it to be a true copy. If the attesting officer wants
to verify its authenticity, such an officer can also verify its authenticity and may
download and use the downloaded copy for attesting bonds.
18. Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any,
stand disposed of.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
30.08.2024.
anju rani Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No. 5 5 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 01-09-2024 03:21:07 :::