Puneet Verma v. State Of Haryana

In The High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh CRM-M-48762-2023 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 03.10.2023 Puneet Verma ... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL Present:- Mr. Suneet Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sharad Aggarwal, DAG, Haryana.

***** FIR NO.

DATE POLICE STATION OFFENCES 31.8.2020 Civil Lines, District 406, 420 and 120-B IPC Jind GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J . (Oral) 1.

The petitioner seeks grant of regular bail in a case registered in a case arising out of above mentioned FIR.

2.

The FIR in question was lodged at the instance of Sajjan Malik wherein it is alleged that he as well as 42000 other persons had been working with a Network Marketing Company namely 'OLS WHZZ PVT LTD.' at Jalandhar and that the said company had collected monthly instalments of Rs.2000/- for 11 months with a promise to give gold worth Rs.24,000/- and in this manner the said company is alleged to have collected an amount of Rs.16 crores. It is further

CRM-M-48762-2023 (O&M) - 2 - alleged that the company had also taken an amount of Rs.90 lakhs from various persons on the pretext of a foreign tour to Tashkent. It is alleged that one Sardar Ranjit Singh was the Managing Director of the said company along with another Managing Director namely Sardar Gagandeep Singh and that Sardar Gurvinder Singh was the CEO. It has been submitted that subsequently the company all of a sudden shut down its business and the Directors and other officers of the said company vanished from the spot.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is nowhere named in the FIR and came to be nominated as an accused by the other coaccused who have alleged that the petitioner was in the management of the company.

4.

It has been submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and that the falsity would be evident from the fact that when the complainant stepped into the witness box and was cross-examined he absolutely resiled from the statement. It has further been submitted that several other witnesses including PW-3 Rajesh, PW-4 Omveer, PW-5 Ram Mehar, PW-6 Tejender, PW-7 Shamsher, PW-8 Randhir Singh did not support the case of prosecution at all even in their examination-in-chief and were declared hostile. It has further been submitted that the petitioner has been behind bars since the last about 2 years and otherwise has a clean record and is not involved in any other case.

4.

Opposing the petition, learned State counsel submitted that since coaccused had categorically named the petitioner to be in the

CRM-M-48762-2023 (O&M) - 3 - management of the company, his complicity is clearly evident. Learned State counsel has however, informed that as on date 7 out of cited 31 PWs have been examined. It has also been informed that the petitioner has been behind bars for the last about 2 years and is not involved in any other case.

5.

This Court has considered the rival submissions. 6.

Without commenting anything as regards the merits of the case, but while noticing that the petitioner has been behind bars for a substantial period of about 2 years and also that he enjoys a clean record and that several PWs have resiled, further detention of petitioner will not serve any useful purpose. The petition, as such, is accepted and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned. 03.10.2023 ( GURVINDER SINGH GILL) mohan JUDGE Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No