Kamaldev Mittal vs. State Of Haryana

Facts

The petitioner, Kamaldev Mittal, filed a second petition for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. He was arrested on April 19, 2025, in connection with FIR No. 17, registered under Section 7-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Section 308(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The FIR alleges that the petitioner, a former Councillor, extorted Rs. 5,20,000 from a garment shop owner, Sandeep, by threatening to close Sandeep's complaints regarding GST, electricity, and the Municipal Council. When the complaints were not withdrawn and Sandeep's showroom was sealed by the Municipal Council, the petitioner allegedly demanded an additional Rs. 4,00,000, claiming it was for the Deputy Commissioner. Sandeep, with the help of his cousin Munish alias Monu, recorded a conversation and presented Rs. 4,00,000 to the authorities, leading to the petitioner's arrest. The petitioner claims he has been falsely implicated and that the FSL report does not conclusively support the prosecution's case. Investigation is complete, and the trial is underway.

Held

The Court allowed the petition for regular bail. The Court noted that the petitioner had been in custody for 8 months and 17 days as of January 8, 2026, and is not involved in any other cases. While acknowledging this was a second bail plea, the Court found a substantial change in circumstances due to the petitioner's continued incarceration and the slow pace of the trial, with only one out of 32 prosecution witnesses examined. The Court referred to its own judgment in CRA-S-2332-2023, Rafiq Khan versus State of Haryana and another, regarding the maintainability and considerations for second bail petitions. The Court found no tangible evidence to suggest the petitioner would abscond or tamper with evidence. Therefore, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial was deemed unwarranted. The petitioner was ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing bail/surety bonds, subject to several conditions including not misusing liberty, not tampering with evidence, not absenting himself from trial, not committing further offenses, depositing his passport, providing his cell-phone number, and not delaying the trial. The Court explicitly stated that its observations were not an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail in case FIR No. 17 dated 19.4.2025 under Sections 7-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Section 308(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, considering his period of incarceration and the stage of trial? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on Section 483 of BNSS and principles of bail). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner has been in custody since April 19, 2025. He contends he has been falsely implicated. The prosecution's case relies heavily on an audio clip, for which the FSL report is not conclusive. Investigation is complete, and the trial is ongoing, thus praying for regular bail. Respondent's (State of Haryana and complainant) arguments: The allegations are serious, and the petitioner should not be granted bail as he may abscond or influence witnesses. The direct and serious allegations warrant dismissal of the bail petition.