Shatrughan Kumar Viswas v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M-39467-2023 (O&M) Date of decision: 21.08.2023 Shatrughan Kumar Viswas

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY *****

Present:

Mr. Gaurav Chopra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anurag Chopra, Advocate and Mr. Mohit Giri, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Baljinder Singh Virk, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

***** AMAN CHAUDHARY, J.

1.

Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.17 dated 28.11.2022, registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201 and 120-B IPC (Sections 66-C and 66-D of Information and Technology Act, 2000 added later on), at Police Station Cyber Crime Ballabhgarh, District Faridabad.

2.

Learned Senior counsel contends that the petitioner is in custody for about 8 months, having been arrested on 23.12.2022. He has been falsely implicated in the present case. His name surfaced based on disclosure statement of the co-accused, which is inadmissible in evidence. As per the allegations, an amount of Rs.20,09,723/- was fraudulently withdrawn between 04.10.2022 to 06.10.2022 from the account of the complainant, however, the same was returned by the bank itself, in the

month of December, 2022, regarding which attention of the Court is drawn to the supplementary statement of the complainant and challan, Annexures P-2 and P-5, respectively. Charges were framed on 24.07.2023, but only one witness out of 14 prosecution witnesses has been examined. It is a case of Magisterial trial. He is involved in one more case wherein he is on bail. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble The Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012(2) SCC 382.

3.

Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that the huge amount of money was fraudulently withdrawn from the account of the complainant. An amount of Rs.60,000/-, sim and mobile have been recovered from the petitioner. He is however unable to controvert the submissions made regarding the custody, stage of the trial, the petitioner being on bail in the other case, as also the amount withdrawn was credited to the account of the complainant by the bank. 4.

Heard.

5.

Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi (Supra) had held that, "As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc."

6.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular that the petitioner is in custody for last almost 8 months; on bail

in other case; recovery had been effected; amount stands credited in the account of complainant by the bank; the offences are triable by Magistrate; though charges have been framed on 24.07.2023, however, only 1 out of 14 prosecution witnesses has yet been examined; the trial is likely to take a considerable time, thus his further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose, the present petition for grant of regular bail deserves to be allowed.

7.

As a result, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned and subject to his not being required in any other case. The petitioner shall abide by the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

(ii) The petitioner will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

(iii) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless is exempted by a specific order of Court.

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which, he is an accused, or for commission of which he is suspected of. (v) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly coerce, induce, threaten or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner.

(vi) The petitioner shall not in any manner misuse his liberty.

(vii) The petitioner shall furnish his address and mobile number to the Trial Court forthwith and shall not change the same till the conclusion of the trial and in case for any reason, the petitioner seeks to change any of the aforesaid, the same shall be done only with prior intimation to the learned Trial Court, stating the

reason for the same.

(viii) The petitioner shall not leave the country without prior permission of the trial Court.

(ix) The trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose any other condition, as deemed appropriate while releasing the petitioner.

8.

It is made abundantly clear that in case there is any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail as granted to the petitioner by this order. 9.

In view of the above, it is clarified that the observations made herein are limited for the purpose of present proceedings and would not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed independently of the aforesaid observations. ( AMAN CHAUDHARY ) 21.08.2023 JUDGE ashok Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No