***

ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL) –

After being declined bail by learned trial Court, petitioner before this Court, seeks his release as an undertrial in a case bearing FIR No.30 dated 04.03.2022, registered under Sections 120-B, 406, 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) at Police Station, Anaj Mandi, Patiala, District Patiala.

2. Per prosecution case, M/s Kim Infrastructure and Developers Ltd., Patiala, invited general public to invest with them in year 2010 by way of three distinct policies: RD (Recurring Deposit), FD (Fixed Deposits), and MIS (Monthly Income Scheme). The option to acquire a plot by utilizing the maturity amount from the FDRs was also available. Members of the public, including the complainants, invested varying sums of money, amounting to a total of Rs. 39 lakh.

Subsequently, upon realizing that they had fallen victim to fraudulent activities, the investors confronted Ravinder Singh, also known as Sidhu, the promoter/owner of the company. They also filed a petition before this Court, leading to the directive for the Superintendent of Police to address their concerns. Following an inquiry conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Special Crime, Patiala, it was discovered that four other FIRs under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code had been registered against the aforementioned company.

Further investigation revealed that complainant Lakhwinder Singh had been an employee of the said company until 2018, and Meena Kumari had been employed as an agent. Amandeep Narang, Deepak Mahajan, and Jatinder Sachdeva had also worked for the company. It was uncovered that, apart from Ravinder Singh (Sidhu), 13 of his associates were detained in custody for duping the general public in a similar fashion. They had deceived individuals by promising to double their invested funds or provide land in exchange for their investments. After registration of the FIR, during investigation, petitioner was also arrested as a suspect on 18.01.2023.

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 petitioner has no role to play in the commission of offence. In fact, even the petitioner himself is victim of the conspiracy hatched by the complainant and police officials. There is unexplained delay of 14 months in lodging the present FIR. As per the allegations, the alleged amount was paid from 01.11.2010 to 19.01.2021 and the present FIR has been lodged on 04.03.2022.Said delay is fatal to the prosecution, contends the learned counsel.

3.1 Learned counsel further submits that FIR was 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.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail petition. She submits that cheating indulged into by Kim Infrastructures runs into crores of rupees. She further submits that petitioner has committed a serious offence. She, however, admits that no other case is pending against him.

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 ASI Prem Chand, learned State counsel submits that challan was presented on 19.03.2023.Investigation is thus complete qua petitioner, he is not required for custodial interrogation. Allegations against petitioner are a matter of trial at this stage. There are 126 prosecution witnesses out of them, none has been examined till date. Commencement/conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite sometime. Bail allows an accused to maintain his freedom until his guilt or innocence is determined. Whereas petitioner has already been languishing in jail for the last more than 07 months in preventive custody, he being behind bars since 18.01.2023.

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 nonviolent 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 48-year old, married person having a family comprising of wife and one minor child to look after, who are living in sheer penury in his absence. Being a family man and having clean antecedents and fixed abode, it is unlikely that he is flight risk or will flee from the trial proceedings.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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.

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

Order accordingly.

********