[ad_1]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surender Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 6 May, 2025
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:059355
CRM-M-23325-2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
232 CRM-M-23325-2025
DATE OF DECISION: 06.05.2025
SURENDER KUMAR ...PETITIONER
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA ... RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. D.S. Virk, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Ms. Mayuri Lakhanpal Kalia, DAG, Haryana.
***
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. Prayer
The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under
Section 483 BNSS seeking regular bail in case FIR No.22 dated
31.01.2023 under Sections 406,420,467,468,471,506,120-B,34 IPC
and Section 3 of the Haryana Protection of Interest of Depositors in
Financial Establishment Act, 2013 registered at P.S Ding, District
Sirsa.
2. Prosecution story, set up in the present case as per the
version in the FIR reads as under :-
‘Vikram Sukhralia son of Sh. Hukam Chand resident of
village Mochiwali Tehsil and District Sirsa, complainant vs. 1.
Akint Agarwal resident of RIOC 802 Gayatri Shivam 90 Foot
Road Thakur Complex, Kandivali East Mumbai Maharashtra 2.
1 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 07-05-2025 05:57:34 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:059355CRM-M-23325-2025 2
Surendra Pal son of Neki Ram 3. Jaipal son of Sh. Neki Ram
resident of village Mochiali Tehsil and District Sirsa 4. Shiv
Kumar son of unknown accused under Istgaasa Section
420/467/468/471/506/34/406/120-B IPC Police Station Ding.
Sir, 1, complainant makes the following statement that the
complainant is the resident of the above address and is a peace
loving, law abiding citizen. 2. That on 13-2-18, the applicant
had taken a loan of Rs. 1,50,000 from Landing Park Solution
Pvt. Ltd. Company through accused No. 2 Surendra son of Neki
Ram, who is the main person of the company. Accused No. 2 had
got the applicant’s signed on the three cheques of HDFC Bank
of account number 50100228913020 and some blank papers as
security. Landing Park Company had its office on Ding Road.
The default installment of the applicant’s loan was Rs. 8081/-,
which the applicant kept paying without any interruption and on
3-6-2020, the applicant had paid the entire amount of the said
loan along with interest. The applicant used to pay the
installment of his loan either in cash to the accused Surendra or
sometimes used to deposit the installment in the company’s
HDFC bank account no. 5700000049932 in cash but the
company did not provide any receipt for the installment which
were deposited by the applicant. 3. That despite the completion
of the loan installment of the applicant, the accused Surendra
deducted an amount of Rs. 500/- from the above mentioned
HDFC bank account of the applicant by copying the signature of
the applicant through fake ECS. When the applicant complained
about this to the company, Surendra Kumar said that according
to the company, one more installment is made out from your
side, if you pay that, your loan will be completed. Even after the
applicant paid the additional installment, the accused kept
harassing the applicant by calling repeatedly, in respect of
which the applicant gave a complaint on cm window
CMOFF/M2021/001430 dated 6.1.21, but despite giving NOC,
by hatching a criminal conspiracy, they filled the bank cheque of
2 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 07-05-2025 05:57:35 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:059355
CRM-M-23325-2025 3
Rs.65543/- of the applicant and tried to withdraw the money by
depositing it in his bank account on 11-7-22, but due to lack of
money in the bank account, the cheque bounced, in respect of
which a complaint was given CM Window
CMOFF/N2022/081374 dated 18-7-22, the investigation of
which was carried out by Ding police station. In connection with
this complaint, Surendra Kumar’s younger brother Jaipal son of
Neki Ram was called as a credit manager to Landing Park
Solution Pvt. Ltd., where Jaipal submitted some documents of
the company to Police Station Ding during the investigation,
which clearly showed that the applicant’s loan amount of Rs
22,000 is outstanding, which is completely wrong. The applicant
has already paid the entire loan amount by paying one more
installment. Then the applicant gave a complaint number 4674
PC dated 29-8-22 in the office of Superintendent of Police,
Sirsa, which was marked by Superintendent of Police Sirsa to
Police Station Ding, which was later sent to the Economic
Offences Wing from Police Station Ding for investigation. Even
while the investigation of the complaint was underway, the
accused filled another bank Cheque of Rs 142950/- in their
account on 30-9-22, which bounced due to lack of money in the
bank account of the complainant. In this way, all the above
accused are repeatedly getting the cheques of the complainant
bounced by misusing the cheques taken from the complainant as
security and on the basis of false facts, whereas the complainant
has paid the entire loan amount, whose NOC was also made
available to the complainant by the company on 8-3-21.
Applicant had taken a loan of one lakh fifty thousand rupees
from the company and applicant was registered as a witness in
the company. Apart from this Applicant has nothing to do with
the company. The accused are using the cheque taken as
security to harass applicant and have made a fake ES in
applicant’s HDFC bank account by using the fake signature of
applicant. It is pertinent to write that the accused have done this
3 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 07-05-2025 05:57:35 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:059355
CRM-M-23325-2025 4
earlier also with many of their customers, regarding which many
applications have been given to the SP Sirsa. 4. That the
witnesses of this entire incident are Rajveer son of Shri Vijay Pal
resident of village Mochiwali District Sirsa Tehsil and District
Sirsa, Mange Ram son of Raghuveer Singh resident of village
Kukadthana, Surendra Nehra son of Bhola Ram resident of
village Farwai Kala District Sirsa who is also an employee of
the company and Raj Kumar son of Daya Ram resident of GT
Road opposite MM College Fatehabad. 5. That despite filing
complaints in the police in this regard, the police is not taking
any action against the accused, rather the accused are
threatening to kill the victim. Therefore, the present petition is
being filed in the Honorable court. 6. That the victim is a
resident of village Mochiwala District Sirsa and the above
mentioned matter is committed in the jurisdiction of Police
Station Ding, which comes under the judicial jurisdiction of
your Honorable court, hence you have the right to hear the
present petition. 7. That the prescribed court fee has been pasted
on the petition. Therefore, by presenting the application it is
requested that the accused, by being accomplices in the
conspiracy, have cheated the applicant, have committed breach
of trust and have threatened to kill the applicant, thus the
accused have committed the offence under Section
420/467/468/471/506/34/406/120-B IPC, hence the accused
should be summoned under these sections and given severe
punishment. Sirsa/Date:17/12/22 Sd/- Vikram Singh Applicant
Vikram Sukhraliya son of Shri Hukam Chand resident of village
Mochiwali Tehsil and District Sirsa,
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
no offence is made out against the present petitioner as he has not
4 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 07-05-2025 05:57:35 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:059355
CRM-M-23325-2025 5
committed any forgery with the complainant at any point of time rather it
was complainant who committed fraud with the company and falsely
roped the petitioner in the present FIR. He further submits that similarly
situated co-accused namely Jaipal and Shiv Kumar have already been
granted concession of anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated
24.04.2025 passed in CRM-M-16833-2025 and CRM-M-20906-2025
(Annexure -4 and P-5). Moreso, the investigation in this case is complete
as challan stands presented on 18.03.2025 charges stands framed on
06.05.2025 out of 13 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined so
far which is sufficient to infer that the conclusion of trial is likely to take
considerable time, therefore, prays for grant of regular bail to the
petitioner.
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.
Learned State Counsel on instructions from the Investigating
Officer opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail stating that the
petitioner is a habitual offender as he is involved in other FIR, moreso,
the cheques of the complainant were used in order to encash the same
despite the fact that no objection certificate was issued in his favour, but
is not in a position to controvert the submissions made by learned counsel
for the petitioner.
4. Analysis
From the above discussion, it can be culled out that the
petitioner has already suffered sufficient incarceration i.e. 4 months and
15 days, similarly situated co-accused have already been granted
5 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 07-05-2025 05:57:35 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:059355
CRM-M-23325-2025 6
concession of anticipatory bail by this Court, nothing is to be recovered
from the present petitioner 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 18.03.2025 charges stands framed on 06.05.2025 out of 13
prosecution witnesses, none has been examined so far which is sufficient
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“,
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
6 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 07-05-2025 05:57:35 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:059355
CRM-M-23325-2025 7
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. 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
7 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 07-05-2025 05:57:35 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:059355
CRM-M-23325-2025 8
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,
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 basic and 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 “Balwinder
Singh versus State of Punjab and Another“, SLP (Crl.)
No.8523/2024. Relevant paras of the said judgment reads as under:-
“7. An accused has a right to a fair trial and while a
hurried
trial is frowned upon as it may not give sufficient time to
prepare for the defence, an inordinate delay in conclusion8 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 07-05-2025 05:57:35 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:059355CRM-M-23325-2025 9
of the trial would infringe the right of an accused
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
8. It is not for nothing the Author Oscar Wilde in “The
Ballad of Reading Gaol”, wrote the following poignant
lines while being incarcerated:
“I know not whether Laws be right,
Or whether Laws be wrong;
All that we know who be in jail
Is that the wall is strong;
And that each day is like a year,
A year whose days are long.”
As far as the pendency of other cases and involvement of
the petitioner in other cases is concerned, reliance can be placed upon
the order of this Court rendered in CRM-M-25914-2022 titled as
“Baljinder Singh alias Rock vs. State of Punjab” decided on
02.03.2023, wherein, while referring Article 21 of the Constitution of
India, this Court has held that no doubt, at the time of granting bail, the
criminal antecedents of the petitioner are to be looked into but at the
same time it is equally true that the appreciation of evidence during the
course of trial has to be looked into with reference to the evidence in
that case alone and not with respect to the evidence in the other
pending cases. In such eventuality, strict adherence to the rule of denial
of bail on account of pendency of other cases/convictions in all
probability would land the petitioner in a situation of denial of the
concession of bail.
5. Relief
In view of the aforesaid discussions made hereinabove, the
petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail
9 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 07-05-2025 05:57:35 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:059355
CRM-M-23325-2025 10
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
06.05.2025
anuradha
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
10 of 10
::: Downloaded on - 07-05-2025 05:57:35 :::
[ad_2]
Source link