Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sumit vs State Of Ut Chandigarh on 16 October, 2024
Author: Kirti Singh
Bench: Kirti Singh
KAPIL 2024.10.16 16:51 CRM-M-37599-2024(O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 229 CRM-M-37599-2024(0&M) Decided on: 16.10.2024 Sumit .. . Petitioner(s) Versus State of U.T. Chandigarh ... Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH PRESENT: Mr. Shailender Singh, Advocate and Ms. Priya Bhati, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Manish Bansal, PP, UT Chandigarh and Mr. Shubham Mangla, Advocate for UT Chandigarh. sk 2k KIRTI SINGH, J. (Oral)
The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been invoked for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.32 dated 18.04.2024, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station Cyber Crime, Sector 17, Chandigarh.
2. The facts in brief are that present FIR was lodged on the basis of complaint wherein the complainant alleged that she had uploaded her profile on websites to search jobs and in that respect she received one email for job interview. When she visited for the job interview, she met 03 boys and 01 girl out of which one person had introduced himself as Mohit Rajput and other told her that he works in HR department and there she was offered job in MAX Hospital Mohali and was given letter of intent to hire in the name of Paramount HR Services. On the pretext of providing her laptop and bag she was asked to pay Rs.21,500/- for same complainant transferred the | attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-37599-2024(O&M) 2 amount into the account of one girl namely Shreya Dattatray Bhagyawant, and a payment receipt in the name of Paramount HR Services was provided to her. Thereafter, she received calls from two mobile numbers and was asked to pay more amount on pretext of providing some more office accessories. Later, the complainant came to know that office space was rented out for just 02 days and she had been defrauded to the tune of Rs.21500/- on the pretext of providing job.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the alleged incident of taking fake interview is of 02.11.2023 and the petitioner had started working with the other co-accused since January 2024. The petitioner was working as Swiggy, Zomato delivery person when he was approached by the other co-accused persons to do the job of office boy in their office. He further submits that petitioner is a poor person who used to work as an office boy whose job was limited to the aspect of providing Tea/Coffee to the visitors coming and cleaning the office premises. He was not aware about of the nature of activities going on in the office and he was under the impression that the other-co-accused were doing some regular office work.
4. It is also contended that applicant has undergone an actual custody of 05 months and 29 days and there is no other case registered against him.
5. Per contra \earned State counsel submits that the petitioner was actively involved in the commission of the offence. He has filed custody certificate in Court today and the same is taken on record. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner has undergone actual custody of 05 months and 29 bod i0.161651 Gays and is not involved in any other case. He on instructions from the | attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-37599-2024(O&M) concerned investigating officer submits that charges were framed on 19.09.2024 and out of total of 14 prosecution witnesses, only one has been examined. He, however, submits that in view of the serious allegations against the petitioner, he is not entitled to the concession of regular bail.
6. Heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
7. The veracity of the allegations leveled against the petitioner shall be established during the course of the trial. Admittedly, the charges were framed on 19.09.2024. The petitioner has undergone an actual custody of 05 months and 29 days. Out of total of 14 prosecution witnesses, only one has been examined. The petitioner has clean antecedents as no other case is registered against him. Further incarceration of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose.
8. Without commenting anything on the merits of the case, lest it may prejudice the trial, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing adequate bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. The petitioner shall also abide by the following conditions:-
(1) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(II) The petitioner will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(s).
(III) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. (IV) The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused of, or for commission of which she is suspected.
(V) The petitioner 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 from disclosing such api facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the 2024.10.16 16:51 evidence.
| attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-37599-2024(O&M)
9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.
10. However, nothing stated above shall be construed as a final expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court would proceed independently of the observations made in the present case which are only for the purpose of adjudicating the present bail petition.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE 16.10.2024 Kapil Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No KAPIL 2024.10.16 16:51 | attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document