Sandeep Sharma v. State Of Haryana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Reserved on: 07.01.2025
Pronounced on: 22.01.2025 Sandeep Sharma
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present:
Mr. Tarun Singhal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Aashish Bishnoi, DAG, Haryana.
**** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No.
Dated Police Station Sections 15.09.2023 PS Cyber Crime Ballabgarh, District Faridabad 386/419/420/467/468/471/ 120-B/201/204 IPC 1.
The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up before this Court under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking regular bail.
2.
Per paragraph 9 of the bail application and 12 of the status report, the accused has the following criminal antecedents:
Sr.
No.
FIR No.
Date Offenses Police Station 06.03.2024 420/120-B/ 467/468/471/201/204 IPC Cyber Crime, Ballabgarh, Faridabad 559/2023 - 420 IPC, 66C of IT Act Kozhikode 3.
The facts and allegations are being taken from the status report filed by the State, which reads as follows:
"3. That the brief facts of the present case are that a complaint was submitted by Ruchi Kumari alleging therein that on 05.09.2023, she had received a call on her mobile phone no. 97161xxxx, from mobile no. 77188xxxx. The caller disclosed himself as Kartikey and told that he is calling from Fed Ex Company, Mumbai, and also told that her parcel that was to be dispatched from Mumbai to Taiwan, had been cancelled and transferred the call to customer care. The complainant told them that she had not sent any parcel, to which they informed that it was possible that her Aadhar Card number. might have been linked since the parcel was in her name only and the Mumbai
Police had stopped the parcel at Customs. The parcel was containing some clothes, five Passports, five Credit Cards of SBI, one Laptop and 650 grams of MDMA (i.e. a contraband). It was informed that the FIR has also been registered against her and in case, she had nothing to do with the aforesaid luggage, she had to obtain Clearance from Mumbai Crime Branch. Thereafter, she was made to talk to a man who claimed to be an official of Mumbai Crime Branch, and disclosed the Aadhar Card, to her, while also telling her that a lot of illegal activities were going on in context with her Aadhar Card and that her Aadhar Card was also having links with terrorist activities.
She was asked to contact them on Telegram and Skype and her photograph was taken, illegally on Skype and threatened to send them money if she wanted to do away with the case as they were linked with terrorist activities also. As a result, she transferred total amount of Rs. 16,23,562/- under fear in the bank account number 0865002100xxxx of PNB. Prayer was made for taking legal action. Thereupon, the above mentioned FIR No. 33 dated 15.09.2023 u/s 386, 419, 420, 120-B IPC (Later on added Section 467, 468, 471, 201, 204 IPC) was registered at P.S. Cyber Crime, Ballabgarh, Faridabad."
4.
The petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and their family.
5.
The State's counsel opposes bail and refers to the status report. 6.
It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the status report, which read as follows:
"9.
That the role of the petitioner Sandeep Sharma in the present case is that he had obtained the Yes Bank current account of Deewan Cargo of accused Ashraf. The petitioner had also opened his current account at Federal Bank in the name of Global Tour Packages. The petitioner had received 1% share from the amounts transferred in the current account of Deewan Cargo in Yes Bank and he had received 2% share from the amounts transferred in the current accourit of Global Tour Packages in Federal Bank. The petitioner has received Rs. 3,500/- out of his share of the amount of fraud, however, he spent the same. The petitioner has got recovered one mobile phone Galaxy A03S IMEI No. 3545868573xxx, 3586307873xxx having sim no. 85956xxx and one mobile phone Samsung IMEI No. 3529181784xxxx, 3534185584xxxx having sim no.
88828xxx, one original Adhaar Card. Mobile phone Galaxy A03S was used by the petitioner for using the sim card of mobile number 70114xxx which was registered in the Yes Bank account of Deewan Cargo. Also, the mobile phone Samsung IMEI No. 3529181784xxx, 353418558xxxxx was used for sharing the bank related documents.
10.
That the evidence against the petitioner is that he has been hamed by accused Nitin Sharma in his amended disclosure statement. Also, the petitioner has got recovered one mobile phone Galaxy A03S IMEI No. 354586857xxx, 358630787xxx having sim no. 85956xxxx and one mobile phone Samsung IMEI No. 352918178xxxx, 353418558xxxx having sim no. 88828xxx,
one original Adhaar Card. The amended disclosure statement of accused Nitin Sharma is attached herewith as Annexure R-2 for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court."
7.
There is sufficient primafacie evidence connecting the petitioner with the alleged crime. However, pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing. Per paragraph 8 of the bail petition, the petitioner has been in custody since 02.03.2024. Per the custody certificate dated 06.01.2025, the petitioner's total custody in this FIR is 10 months and 01 days. Given the penal provisions invoked viz-a-viz pre-trial custody, coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allegations, and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability further pre-trial incarceration at this stage.
8.
Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for bail. This order shall come into force from the time it is uploaded on this Court's official webpage.
9.
Given above, provided the petitioner is not required in any other case, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the FIR captioned above subject to furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accepting the surety, the concerned Court must be satisfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused. 10.
While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioner shall mention the following personal identification details:
1.
AADHAR number 2.
Passport number (If available) and when the attesting officer/court considers it appropriate or considers the accused a flight risk.
3.
Mobile number (If available) 4.
E-Mail id (If available) 11.
This order is subject to the petitioner's complying with the following terms. 12.
The petitioner shall abide by all statutory bond conditions and appear before the concerned Court(s) on all dates. The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence, influence, browbeat, pressurize, induce, threaten, or promise, directly or indirectly, any witnesses, Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case or dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police or the Court.
13.
This bail is conditional, and the foundational condition is that if the petitioner indulges in any non-bailable offense, the State may file an application for cancellation of this bail before the Sessions Court, which shall be at liberty to cancel this bail.
14.
Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 15.
A certified copy of this order would not be needed for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Petitioner can download this order along with case status from the official web page of this Court and attest it to be a true copy. If the attesting officer wants to verify its authenticity, such an officer can also verify its authenticity and may download and use the downloaded copy for attesting bonds. 16.
Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 22.01.2025 Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable:
No.