Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shamsher Singh vs State Of Punjab on 10 March, 2014
Author: Rekha Mittal
Bench: Rekha Mittal
CRM-M-1685-2014 1
IN THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-1685-2014
Date of decision : 10.03.2014
Shamsher Singh
... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE REKHA MITTAL
Present: Mr.P.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate
for the petitioner.
REKHA MITTAL, J.(ORAL)
The petitioner prays for grant of regular bail in FIR No.27 dated 10.03.2013 registered at Police Station Samana, District Patiala for offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'the Code').
Mr.Param Preet Singh Paul, DAG, Punjab has put in appearance on behalf of the State of Punjab to contest the prayer for bail.
Counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that initially, the allegations in the FIR were raised that an amount of of Rs.1.65 crores is due from the petitioner and during hearing of application for grant of pre-arrest bail, the petitioner furnished an affidavit undertaking to discharge that liability to the tune of Rs.1.65 crores but later after notice, the amount outstanding was stated to be Rs.5.65 crores and the petitioner expressed his inability to pay such a huge amount. It is further submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 31.08.2013, the challan has been presented in Davinder Kumar 2014.03.11 17:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-1685-2014 2 the Court after completion of investigation and conclusion of trial is likely to take its own time. It is further submitted that co-accused in the case namely Sukhwant Singh has been enlarged on bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala vide order dated 24.02.2014. According to counsel, the petitioner is ready to face proceedings, in accordance with law when otherwise conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time. Counsel has submitted that in cases involving economic offences of huge magnitude, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has allowed bail pending conclusion of trial. In support of his contention, he has relied upon judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI, 2011(4) RCR (Criminal) 898, Dipak Shubhashchandra Mehta Vs. C.B.I. and Anr. 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 870, Ashok Dhingra Vs. N.C.T. Of Delhi, 2000, AIR (SC) 3537 and judgment of Delhi High Court in Suresh Kalmadi Vs. CBI, 2012(5) RCR (Criminal) 556 and the judgment of this Court Anil Kumar Vs. State of Punjab, 2013(3) RCR (Criminal) 854.
Counsel further submitted that the agriculture land owned by the petitioner has been attached during investigation for realization of the amount. The proceedings in regard to the dispute are pending before the arbitrator.
Counsel for the State of Punjab has not disputed factual assertions but opposed the prayer for bail.
The offences, for which the petitioner has been charged, are triable by the Court of Magistrate. The conclusion of trial is likely to take its own time. There are no allegations that the petitioner is likely to flee from the process of justice in case enlarged on bail.
Davinder Kumar 2014.03.11 17:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-1685-2014 3
Counsel for the State has conceded to the factum that the present case is the only case registered against him till date. In Sanjay Chandra'sbi case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in paras 27 & 28 has held quoted hereinbelow:-
"27. In 'Bihar Fodder Scam', this Court, taking into consideration the seriousness of the charges alleged and the maximum sentence of imprisonment that could be imposed including the fact that the appellants were in jail for a period more than six months as on the date of passing of the order, was of the view that the further detention of the appellants as pre-trial prisoners would not serve any purpose.
28. We are conscious of the fact that the accused are charged with economic offences of huge magnitude. We are also conscious of the fact that the offences alleged, if proved, may jeopardize the economy of the country. At the same time, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the investigating agency has already completed investigation and the charge sheet is already filed before the Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi. Therefore, their presence in the custody may not be necessary for further investigation. We are of the view that the appellants are entitled to the grant of bail pending trial on stringent conditions in order to ally the apprehension expressed by CBI."
In Dipak Shubhashchandra Mehta's case (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court while relying upon the judgment in Sanjay Chandra's case (supra) allowed bail in case involving economic offences of huge magnitude. This Court in Anil Kumar's case (supra) scanned the various authorities on the issue and held in favour of accused for release on bail. Davinder Kumar 2014.03.11 17:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-1685-2014 4
Keeping in view the above, bail to the petitioner subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court. However, he shall abide by the following conditions:-
(i) he shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and
(ii) he shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.
(REKHA MITTAL) JUDGE March 10, 2014.
Davinder Kumar Davinder Kumar 2014.03.11 17:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document