Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sandeep vs State Of Haryana on 24 July, 2023
Author: Arun Monga
Bench: Arun Monga
211
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-22520-2022 (O&M)
DATE OF DECISION: 24.07.2023
Sandeep ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Present : Mr. D.S.Matya, Advocate,
For the petitioner.
Ms. Svaneel Jaswal, Additional A.G., Haryana.
ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL)
Petitionerseeks bail in case bearing FIR No.190 dated 20.08.2021, registered under Sections 408, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860at Police Station,Udyog Vihar, Gurugram, District Gurugram.
2. Per prosecution version, on a complaint filed by Joginder Singh, Senior Manager Operations of company-M/s Tenon Facility Management India Pvt. Ltd., Lal Chand, Senior Manager Finance and petitioner Sandeep Kumar Dhankar,a Field Executive have been implicated in the FIR question. Allegations are that after the transfer of Lal Chand to a subsidiary company and upon the appointment of a new Senior Manager Finance Mr. Rajesh Kumar, the accounts were reconciled. Petitioner Sandeep Kumar Dhankar was asked to help in the process of reconciliation. Petitioner kept on making excuses to the new Senior Manager and did not provide him with the necessary papers and details. Upon suspicion, an in-depth analysis of the transactions was done. After a detailed investigation of the internal records, that accusedhad been indulging in various fraudulent activities related to the company funds and bank accounts. 2.1. Upon further inspection of the company's internal records and bank statements from 2019 to 2021, and forensic analysis thereof, it turned out VANDANA that accused were illegally withdrawing/misappropriating the monies lying in 2023.07.25 09:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment the bank account of company for theirpersonal use by forging signatures of the authorized signatories. It is alleged that both the accused have embezzled an amount of approximately Rs.81,89,000/- and thus caused wrongful loss to the company.
2.2. Petitioner was arrested on 22.11.2021. During investigation, currency notes of Rs.25,000/- were recovered from his house in the village.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that petitioner was granted interim bail by this Court vide order dated 06.09.2022 to look after his ailing father, who has undergone kidney transplantation. He further submits that petitioner never misused the bail privilege and has been appearing as and when required before learned trial Court.
3.1. He further contends that petitioner was working merely as Field Executive, on the other hand, co-accused Lal Chand, who was Senior Manager, Finance has been let off by the investigating agency. Being an easy target, petitioner has been fastened with culpability whereas he has not committed any such offence, as has been made out in the FIR.He further urges that challan was presented on 10.02.2022.Petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation.No other case is pending against him.
4. Learned State counsel, on instructions from SI Jagdev Singh,opposes the bail petition. She states that huge amount is involved in this case and per report received from RFSL Bhondsi, petitioner was found guilty. Shefurther submits that there are serious allegations against the petitioner. In case petitioner is granted concession of bail, there are chances of his fleeing. However, she admits that no other case is pending against him.
5. I have heard rival contentions of learned counsels.
6. On a Court query, learned State counsel submits that challan hasbeen presented and charges have been framed. Being so, since trial hascommenced, thus petitioner is not required for any further custodial interrogation. Bail allows an accused to maintain his freedom until his guilt or VANDANA 2023.07.25 09:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment innocence is determined.Allegations against petitioner are amatter of trial at this stage.Trial is likely to take a long time as it is proceeding at a snail pace. Whereas,petitioner remained in jail for more than nine months before being released on interim bail vide order dated 06.09.2022 passed in the present proceedings by my learned brother Karamjit Singh. J., as he then was seized of the matter. Petitioner never misused the bail privilege granted by this Court.
7. There is no basis for the unfounded suspicion of prosecution that if petitioneris let out on regular bail, he will either tamper with evidence and/or influence witnesses.There is no probability of tampering with evidence as the same has already been seized by the investigating agency.
8. Petitioner is stated to be 32-year oldsole bread winner having family comprising of his wife, two minor children and elderly parents, who are dependent on him and in his absence, they are living in sheer penury. His father is suffering from kidney ailment. Further incarceration would render him permanently jobless as he will not be able to get job due to blot caused on his career. Being a family person, having responsibilities and clean antecedents, it is unlikely that he is flight risk or will flee from the trialproceedings. Offence allegedly committed by petitioner is of non-violent nature and inthat sense his release on bail is not a threat to the society at large by committing anyviolent crime.
9. Considering the overall scenario and without commenting on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. I am of the view that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in further preventive custody.
10. Since petitioner is already on interim bail till today, he be released on regularbailduring pendency of trial on his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court,where his case is being tried and in case he/she is not available, before learned Duty Judge, as the case may be. VANDANA 2023.07.25 09:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment
11. In case, petitioner is found to be involved or gets involved in any offence while on bail, the prosecution shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of his bail in the instant case.
12. It is made clear that any observations and/or submissions noted hereinabove shall not have any effect on merits of the case as the same are for the limited purpose of hearing/disposal of the instant bail petition alone and learned trial Court shall proceed in accordance with law without being influenced with this order.
13. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
24.07.2023 (ARUN MONGA)
vandana JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
VANDANA
2023.07.25 09:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment