***

ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL) --

CRM-32931-2023

Application is allowed, as prayed for, subject to all just exceptions.

Main case

After being declined bail by learned trial Court, petitioner before this Court, seeks his release as an undertrial in a case bearing FIR No.43 dated 11.02.2020, registered under Sections 120-B, 406, 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) (Sections 467, 468, 471, 201 IPC added later on) at Police Station, Naraingarh, District Ambala.

2. FIR was registered on complaint of one Sadhu Singh. The prosecution allegations are that accused-petitioner along with certain other bank employees had floated Nationalized Bank Employer and other Public Cooperative T&C Society Limited and the residents of the area were invited to deposit promising repayments with higher rate of interest than what was being offered by the banks. It is alleged that a large number of residents of the area deposited their money in the shape of FDRs which on maturity have not been repaid. It is claimed that more than Rs.50 Crore deposited by around 300 people are/were stuck. Petitioner is in custody since 08.12.2020.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that neither the petitioner allured any person nor is/was the beneficiary of the money. He further submits that FIR was initially lodged under Sections 120-B, 406, 420 IPC and aforementioned offences are triable by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class. Nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. No useful purpose would be served to keep the petitioner behind the bars to await the decision of trial of the case.

3.1 Co-accused Randhir Singh and Rasal Chand were released on bail by this Court vide order dated 06.07.2023 and 18.07.2023 (Annexures P-3 and P-4, respectively). Petitioner’s case is at par with his co-accused who are on bail and yet he continues to be in jail, he contends. He also argues that on the ground of parity alone, petitioner is entitled to be released on bail during pendency of trial.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel, assisted by learned counsel for complainant, opposes the bail petition. He submits that petitioner duped the complainant and 300 other persons of a huge amount of Rs.50 Crore which was their hard-earned money. He further submits that petitioner has committed a serious offence and he is also involved in two other cases of similar nature. Out of them, though in one case he is on bail but in the second case, his bail petition is still pending.

5. I have heard rival contentions of learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the case file.

6. On a Court query, under instructions from SI Kulbir Singh, learned State counsel submits that challan was presented and charges were framed on 22.03.2021. Investigation is thus complete qua petitioner, he is not required for custodial interrogation. There are 317 prosecution witnesses out of them, only ten have been examined till date. Commencement/conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite some time. Bail allows an accused to maintain his freedom until his guilt or innocence is determined. Allegations against petitioner are a matter of trial at this stage. Whereas petitioner has already been languishing in jail for more than 02 years and seven months in preventive custody, he being behind bars since 08.12.2020.

7. Petitioner is being kept in preventive custody merely on an unfounded suspicion that if he is let out, he may 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. Be that as it may, offence allegedly committed by petitioner is of non-violent nature and in that sense his release on bail is not a threat to society at large by committing any violent crime.

9. Petitioner is stated to be 64-year old, senior citizen, a family person and only bread winner of his family. Being a family man and having fixed abode, it is unlikely that he is flight risk or will flee from the trial proceedings.

10. Co-accused have been granted concession of bail by this Court vide orders dated 06.07.2023 and 18.07.2023.

11. 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 to keep the petitioner in further preventive custody.

12. Accordingly, petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of Ld. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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 the instant bail petition alone and learned trial Court shall proceed without being influenced with this order.

15. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

Order accordingly.

********