Punjab-Haryana High Court
Masoom Juneja vs State Of Punjab on 19 January, 2024
Author: Manjari Nehru Kaul
Bench: Manjari Nehru Kaul
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
111+224/2
2024:PHHC:008018
CRM-939-2024 in/and
CRM-M-63091-2023
Date of decision: January 19th, 2024
Masoom Juneja
.....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL
Present: Dr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Arshvir Singh Sandhu, Mr. Kanishk Sarup
and Mr. Tarnjot Singh Sidana, Advocates
for the petitioner.
Mr. Mohit Kapoor, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.
MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL)
CRM-939-2024 Prayer in this application is for placing on record copy of challan/police report as Annexure P-6.
Application is allowed subject to just exceptions. Annexure P-6 is taken on record.
CRM-M-63091-2023 Petitioner is seeking the concession of regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in case FIR No.253 dated 01.09.2023 under Sections 406, 420, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 4, 5, 12, 18, 76, 76 (2) of Chit Funds Act, 1982, Sections 21 and 23 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act registered at Police Station Zirakpur, District S.A.S. Nagar.
PUNEET SACHDEVA 2024.01.20 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document. Chandigarh
CRM-939-2024 in/and -2-
CRM-M-63091-2023
2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner was neither named in the FIR in question nor was any role attributed to him either in the challan, which was initially presented on 31.10.2023 or even for that matter in the supplementary challan, which was presented after two months on 23.12.2023; the petitioner was not even an employee of the prime accused Subhash Sharma, who was allegedly running a company, which had been collecting different sums of money and was also dealing in cryptocurrency. Learned senior counsel has submitted that the petitioner, who has clean antecedents, has been nominated as an accused only because he and the prime accused Subhash Sharma owned some joint properties. It has been further submitted that after being arrested on 25.10.2023, investigation in the case in hand is complete and challan stands presented. Hence, his further incarceration in the facts and circumstances would serve no useful purpose as the trial would take considerable time to conclude.
3. Per contra, learned State counsel while opposing the prayer and submissions made by the counsel opposite, on instructions, has not disputed the submissions made by the counsel opposite qua the petitioner neither being named in the initial complaint which had been registered or having been in any capacity associated with the company of the main accused Subhash Sharma. However, he submits that the petitioner had purchased some properties along with the prime accused Subhash Sharma.
4. On a pointed query put to the learned State counsel as to whether any evidence had come to the fore that the properties purchased PUNEET SACHDEVA 2024.01.20 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document. Chandigarh CRM-939-2024 in/and -3- CRM-M-63091-2023 by the petitioner with prime accused Subhash Sharma had any link with the crime money, he on instructions, has replied in the negative.
5. It has been further submitted by the learned State counsel that the next date fixed before the trial Court is 12.02.2024 when the charges are likely to be framed.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.
7. In the facts and circumstances as enumerated hereinabove, coupled with the nature of allegations levelled of being a joint holder of some property with the prime accused, his further incarceration would serve no useful purpose; as many as 60 witnesses have been cited by the prosecution, the trial would, therefore, taken considerable time to conclude. It has also not been disputed by the learned State counsel, on instructions, that the petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case.
8. The instant petition is allowed. The petitioner be admitted to bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. However, it is made clear that anything observed hereinabove shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
9. Needless to say, in case the petitioner misuses the concession of bail granted to him, the State would be at liberty to seek cancellation of the same.
January 19th, 2024 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)
Puneet JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : No
PUNEET SACHDEVA
2024.01.20 16:37
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document.
Chandigarh