Ranadeep Ghosal vs. State Of Haryana

Held

The Court granted bail to the petitioner, Ranadeep Ghosal. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's alleged involvement in cheating and criminal conspiracy, as well as his criminal antecedents. However, it noted that the petitioner had been in custody for approximately six months and 17 days. The Court emphasized that pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing and that personal liberty is a precious fundamental right. While finding sufficient prima facie evidence connecting the petitioner to the crime, the Court concluded that further pre-trial incarceration was not warranted at this stage, considering the period of custody and the amount involved. The bail was granted subject to furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Court, with a maximum bond amount not exceeding INR 10,000. Additional conditions included the petitioner not tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, and a specific condition that if the petitioner repeats the offense or commits any non-bailable offense punishable with more than seven years imprisonment, the State may apply for revocation of bail.

Facts

The petitioner, Ranadeep Ghosal, sought regular bail in an FIR registered under Sections 406, 420, 506, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR was filed by Amarnath Khudania, alleging that the petitioner and others, through consultancies named Uni Assist and Uni Global Edutech Pvt. Ltd., defrauded him of approximately Rs. 3,85,000/- by promising admission and higher education for his daughter in Germany. The complainant alleged that despite receiving substantial payments, including Rs. 27,000/- for GST for which no receipt was provided, the commitments were not fulfilled, and the petitioner allegedly threatened the complainant. The petitioner has been in custody for approximately six months and 17 days. The State opposed bail, highlighting the petitioner's alleged role as the owner and authorized signatory of companies involved in the alleged fraud and substantial financial transactions from company accounts to his personal account.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the allegations of cheating and criminal conspiracy, the period of custody, and the petitioner's alleged criminal antecedents? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that further pre-trial incarceration would cause irreversible injustice and expressed willingness to abide by any stringent conditions, including revocation of bail if the offense is repeated. The petitioner's counsel emphasized the period of custody and the principle that pre-trial detention should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing. State's arguments: The State opposed bail, relying on the reply which detailed the petitioner's alleged involvement in the fraudulent scheme, his control over the companies, and significant financial transfers from company accounts to his personal account. The State also pointed to the petitioner's alleged criminal antecedents and the gravity of the offenses.