Naresh vs. State Of Haryana

Facts

This case involves a petition for regular bail filed by Naresh (the petitioner) in FIR No. 15, dated 12.01.2024, registered at Police Station Dharuhera, District Rewari, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR was filed by the authorized signatory of M/s Varuna Integrated Logistics Pvt. Ltd. against former employee Vinod Kumar Jain and New Mittal Motor Store (through its proprietor Krishan Chand, and employees Soni Mittal and Pali). The complaint alleges that Vinod Kumar Jain, in connivance with the other accused, issued purchase orders and invoices in the name of various vendors, including New Mittal Motor Store, for spare parts. These transactions, occurring between 29.05.2021 and 28.11.2023, allegedly amounted to Rs. 1,16,09,421.85, with a GST component of Rs. 24,79,014.70. An internal audit revealed that some of these vendors were non-existent, suggesting misappropriation of company funds. The petitioner, Naresh, was allegedly added to the FIR based on a supplementary statement of a co-accused.

Held

The Court granted regular bail to the petitioner. The Court considered several factors, including the petitioner's incarceration period of 4 months and 14 days, the inordinate delay in the registration of the FIR (alleged incident period 29.05.2021 to 28.11.2023, FIR dated 12.01.2024), and the fact that a similarly situated co-accused had already been granted bail. The Court also noted the petitioner's clean antecedents, indicating he is not a habitual offender. Furthermore, the Court emphasized the principle that an accused should not be considered guilty until proven beyond reasonable doubt, and that a right to a speedy trial is part of Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court referenced its own observations and Supreme Court judgments regarding the humane and judicious exercise of discretion in granting bail, highlighting that bail is the rule and refusal is the exception. The Court also noted that the challan had been presented and charges framed, but no witnesses had been examined, suggesting a considerable delay in the trial's conclusion. The Court explicitly stated that its observations should not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The petitioner was directed to be released on furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail given the alleged delay in lodging the FIR and the fact that his name was added based on a supplementary statement of a co-accused, which the petitioner argues lacks evidentiary value. 2. Whether the petitioner should be granted bail considering that a similarly situated co-accused (Vinod Kumar Jain) has already been granted anticipatory bail, the investigation is complete with challan presented and charges framed, and no prosecution witnesses have been examined, indicating a potentially lengthy trial. 3. Whether the allegations of active participation in the commission of the offence and the transfer of Rs. 40 lakhs to the petitioner's account, as argued by the State, warrant denial of bail. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contends he has been falsely implicated, that there is no specific attribution against him in the FIR, and that his name was added later based on a co-accused's statement. He highlights the inordinate delay in FIR registration (incident period 29.05.2021 to 28.11.2023, FIR dated 12.01.2024), clean antecedents, and the grant of anticipatory bail to a co-accused. He also points to the completion of investigation and framing of charges, with no witnesses examined, suggesting a prolonged trial. State's Arguments: The State opposes bail, arguing that the petitioner actively participated in the offence and that Rs. 40 lakhs were transferred to his account.