High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/4525/2020disposed of

Anil Jindal v. State Of Haryana

2020-06-29Mr. Justice Arun Monga21 pages

!" # $ %%&'(' ()()" $ $* +(,-).-()()

+%/!0 -1

# $

! #& !

'! &

2- ( ) * !

+ ,

$ $ Lis

. !

! !

$ $ / 0 &

! ! !

! !

! 12 13 01(4 $ !05$ ! 6 !

$ ! ! 8 0-9: $$$

895 $ !: 7

;

$ ! 0-9

=> ?

((9

13 19 01(4

301 (01@ 013> +

= A !$

01(9 8 !

01(9 :

0B 19 01(C 8 ; -3:

= =>

$ "to furnish details and documents of any immovable property/properties valuing Rs. 100 crores in lieu of personal bond with respect to all cases pending against the petitioner and other co accused"

01 1C 01(C 8 ; -C: $ + $ ! !

$ 3 =

=> 3 ( $

13 19 01(4 !

=> 7

&$ $ $E !

8 : ! !

+!$ &

$ !

( 2G $ !

$ $

$ !

! $ $ &

& !

@ $

$ !! 01(2

0 111- F

$ $

' &

! ! '

$ $

! $ ,

7 , ! !

7 111-

$ !

$ => 3 0 A

$ $

0 111- $

0B 19 01(C $ $ C3 C3 111- ,7 !+

$ !

$ $ !

=> + 7 $ $ => ! $ 0 111-

C3 C3 111- $

0B 19 01(C + =$ $ => !

0 B3 2B 95(-

(1 15 0101 !

.$ + $$

= !+

!-! !

+ 1( 15 01(4 , .

$ ! !!

$ 04 12 01(C %!

12 13 01(4

5 > !'

0B 19 01(C 8 ; -3:

! .

"....... Learned counsel for the applicant further argued that on the basis of allegations mentioned in the complaint, the applicant is liable only for the refund of the invested amount. He further submitted that the applicant along with other co accused persons are ready to furnish the security amount to the extent of alleged defrauded amount, without admitting their liability, as alleged. Learned PP for the State pointed out that applicant and other co accused persons committed the fraud to the extent of Rs. 85 crores including the police cases pending before the Magistrate Courts and the enquiries are still pending in large number of other complaints, which are yet to be registered. After hearing the rival submissions, I have given my thoughtful consideration to the same.

Without commenting on the merits of the case, I am satisfied that the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that the interest of the complainant/inventors can be secured if direction is issued to the applicant and the other accused persons for furnishing the security amount documents to the extent of alleged defrauded amount in lieu of personal bond, along with surety bond. Moreover, I am of the view that if the applicant and the other co accused persons are released on bail by taking substantial surety against the defrauded amount, then in that situation, they may be able to complete their pending projects and will be able to return the amount to the genuine investors along with the delivery of possession of flats/shops/units etc.

to the prospective and existing purchasers in the larger interest of all the parties/public good. Accordingly, applicant Anil Jindal is directed to furnish the details and documents of any immovable property/properties valuing Rs. 100 crores in lieu of personal bond with respect to all cases pending before this Court along with surety bond in the sum of Rs. 1 lac in the present case. The surety bond in the present case will be accepted only on compliance of the above directions.........

concerning security of Rs. 100 crores will be towards the personal bond of applicant Anil Jndal and co accused Nanak Chand, Rajesh Singla and Bishan Bansal and their companies jointly and sevrall with respect to all the cases. ..."

B 7 +

01 1C 01(C8 ; -C: !! " ........From the perusal of the bail orders passed by my learned predecessor it is very much clear that the applicants were directed to furnish the security to the tune of Rs. 100 cores. The applicants can only submit the documents of the properties which are free from all encumbrances. The properties which are already mortgaged or pledged with the bank cannot be accepted as security because the bank has the first right over the mortgaged/pledged properties. The properties submitted by the applicants are not free from all encumbrances and the other properties which are free from all encumbrances, submitted by the applicants are below Rs. 20 crores. In these circumstances I am of the considered opinion that applicants have failed to comply with the conditions of bail orders passed by my ld.

predecessor by not submitting security to the tune of Rs. 100 crores. Therefore, the applicants cannot be released on bail. With these observations, both the applications filed by the applicants namely Nanak Chand Tayal and Anil Jindal are hereby dismissed....."

4 > $

+ = +

C F$

$ $$

- (11 !

(1 >!

! !

# $

" # !$

' ! %!

& #

((

$ !!

-$ $

> - !

$ .

> $.

$ ! @'

!$ =>

$ * $ !

$ !

- '

! !

' F + $

0 211 $ !

! (0 !

$ !

; 9 & !

$ .

- - !

' $ $$ $

$ => %! !

$ (9

! (11 $

$ %!

$ !

+ (3 A ! $ !

39C+ +!

$ !

$ $

$ > !

! !

! 12 13 01(4 !

$ !!$

$ 7

. %!

! $$

! +!- %&- +!

7 911 $ $ & $

- !

! $

- !

(5 %!

5B=>

$ !C(5 $ , !!

92B $

$ 0(2 3B 3C9-22C = $

41 2B 090-

$ + !!

$ ! !

(11

!$ ! !

0B 19 01(C

+ $

! $ $$

- (11 !

$ => !

% +

=> => %!

$ =>

55 =>

! !$ !

$ F

; (1$ ! (B

$ !

$ . $

0B 19 01(C

$ (4 @

8: 6!

0B 19 01(C

$ !

! $

$ $$

(11 !

+ 8: %!

0B 19 01(C8 ; -3: =>?

((9

13 19 01(4 8:

0B 19 01(C

=>?

((9

13 19 01(4

8: 0 111- $

$ 8!:

! => ?

((9

13 19 01(4 : @

! => ?

((9

13 19 01(4 (C

=>- $

=>?

((9

13 19 01(4 = !

$ $ -3

=>?

((9

13 19 01(4 01 >$ $ 7 $

=> ?

((9

13 19 01(4 !

$ '

$ ! => $

$ ! => 0 111- 0 B2

$ 0( # 7

$ $$

- (11

+ $ !! 7

$ !!

00 %!

$ !

! $

$ !

$ > !

E =>?

((9

13 19 01(4 %!

! '

! $

$ =>7 >

111-

0 B2

$ !

$ 42 $

+ 09 > $

$ $$

- (11 !

$ (11

?' +! .

! @! @

$ .

?'+! .

!@!@

= $

; $ =>

. $

$ 42 ! ; $

E =>?

((9

13 19 01(4 03 7 $

> !

' $ +

! F !

@F ' 8!

! IThe discretion to grant or refuse must be exercised judiciously and in a humane manner and compassionately. Also, conditions for the grant of bail ought not to be so strict as to be incapable of compliance, thereby making the grant of bail illusory."

02 %!

$ = !

IbaillierJ !!$

E $ F Ibaiulare/baiuloJ $ D

E > A! IJ $

$ %!

$ A

7 !

! =>

=> !!

$ / +

! 7 => ((9

13 19 01(4

5B=> !

$ !

55=> =>

0B 19 01(C 0B %!

+ . => %!

$ !

55=> !

=> !

! =>

! $ !=>

=> !

-=> +

$ .

55=> ! ! . => !!

04 > !

+ + $

. 005 + > ! +

$ $.

$ ' (11

$ => +

8: => 7 ! $ =

$ . 7!!

0C F $ !! F $

$ 8: F

' 7

$ $

!! $ !

$ !

> $

- : K : K:

K: !

' ! K !

! $ $

5B=> ! ! . => @

! $. ! !$ -=>

$ -=>/

( 2G0G $ !8(4G03G $:/

L> $

* !! > !

7 7

L$ !

$ !

$ $ +

; -

! mens rea

$$ $ / $!!

(4G !

$ !

$ $

! ! $ !

! $

- $

! $

$ / @

@ $ !

.$ !

;

! 0 211

$$ $

$ 9(

3318(:+!

MMM>>> + +$

! ;

$ !

80:

+ $

39C8(:8@:+ +

! + + $

$ =

!"#

$$"" % & .

(1) A High Court or Court of Session may direct

(a) x x x (b) that any condition imposed by a Magistrate when releasing an person on bail be set aside or modified: Provided that the High Court or the Court of Session shall, before granting bail to a person who is

accused of an offence which is triable exclusively by the Court of Session or which, though not so triable, is punishable with imprisonment for life, give notice of the application for bail to the Public Prosecutor unless it is, for reasons to be recorded in writing, of opinion that it is not practicable to give such notice.

' ($ & % %%$

(1) The amount of every bond executed under this chapter shall be fixed with due regard to the circumstances of the case and shall not be excessive."

90 >1 34-1 $5()67& 35 1 !

D E

394 8 ! : !

$ !

$ = !

$ $

$ !

"15. That words "any condition" used in the provision should not be regarded as conferring absolute power on a court of law to impose any condition that it chooses to impose. Any condition has to be interpreted as a reasonable condition acceptable in the facts permissible in the circumstance and effective in the pragmatic sense and should not defeat the order of grant of bail. We are of the view that the present facts and circumstances of the case do not warrant such extreme condition to be imposed." %!

;+ $$ "While exercising power under Section 438 of the Code, the court is duty bound to strike a balance between the individual s right to personal freedom ‟ and the right of investigation of the police.

For the same, while granting relief under Section 438(1), appropriate conditions can be imposed under Section 438(2) so as to ensure an uninterrupted investigation. The object of putting such conditions should be to avoid the possibility of the person hampering the investigation. Thus, any condition, which has no reference to the fairness or propriety of the investigation or trial, cannot be countenanced as permissible under the law. So, the discretion of the court while imposing conditions must be exercised with utmost restraint.

........ We also clarify that while granting anticipatory bail, the courts are expected to consider and keep in mind the nature and gravity of accusation, antecedents of the applicant, namely, about his previous involvement in such offence and the possibility of the applicant to flee from justice. It is also the duty of the court to ascertain whether accusation has been made with the object of injuring or humiliating him by having him so arrested. It is needless to mention that the courts are duty bound to impose appropriate conditions as provided under subsection (2) of Section 438 of the Code." 99 > 8134-1 $5()6'76&,72

! ! # !!+

! %!

"7. A plain reading of the above decision makes it crystal clear that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial. It is further observed that the object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative and that deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment unless it is required to ensure that the accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The Supreme Court further observed that when a person is punished by denial of bail in respect of any matter upon which he has not been convicted it would be contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution except in cases where there

is reason to believe that he will tamper with the witnesses. To encapsulate, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that pre

conviction detention should not be resorted to except in cases of necessity to secure attendance at the trial or upon material that the accused will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty." 93 %!

0B 19 01(C inter alia

$ (11

?'+! .

! @! @ $ .

% $$

$ ! !

$ #

! $ (11

! ?'+! .

! @!@

$ 92 = $

=> $ =>

+ !!

+ +

$! + $

=> !

$ . =>

$ =>

(11

55=>

$ (11! ! => $ '

5 B11 %! $ $ >

! !

! ! $

! 95

A,6 = 9B

0B 19 01(C

$ ! 7 ?

! !

! !. %!

$ $ $$

- (11 05$ !

. !

$ !

!$ "

$ !

$ $ !!

!$ 94 %!

=>?

((9

13 19 01(4 $ 0 B2 $ !

! $

>$ . $

! => !!

8 :

$ -!

! 9 111- $

$ $ -

! 9 111- !

9C -

0B 19 01(C ; -3

"to furnish the details and documents of any immovable property/properties valuing Rs.100 crores in lieu of personal bond with respect to all cases pending before that Court along with surety bond in the sum of Rs. 1 lac in the present case and directs that the surety bond in the present case will be accepted only on compliance of the above directions and that the said documents concerning security of Rs. 100 crores will be towards the personal bond of applicant Anil Jindal and co accused Nanak Chand, Rajesh Singla and Bishan Bansal and their companies jointly and severally with respect to all the cases."

B. >

$ -! $

0B 19 01(C8 ; -3: $

=>?

((9

13 19 01(4

! 9 111- $

$ -

! 9 111- !

7 $ + %!

01 1C 01(C8 ; -C: $ + $ ! !

$ $$

31 6! $ !+ E

=>7 , !

=> = $

7 => ! >

- $ !

=> %!

8: !

0B 19 01(C ; -38 ! =>?

((9

13 19 01(4:

+ '

! $ ! . -

! > $

$ + 8: !

7 $ $ $

=> 3(

$ (,-).-()() $

'- < -?

< -?