Parveen Kumar Alias Parveen Yadav Alias Praveen Kumar vs. State Of Haryana

Held

The Court granted regular bail to the petitioner. While acknowledging the petitioner's criminal antecedents and the serious allegations of impersonation and misappropriation of Rs. 1,66,32,000/-, the Court noted that the trial is likely to take a long time, with 106 prosecution witnesses yet to be examined despite charges being framed on March 20, 2023. The Court observed that the petitioner has been granted bail in most of his other pending cases. It emphasized that the involvement of the petitioner in other cases cannot be the sole ground for denying bail. The Court stated that appreciation of evidence must be based on the evidence in the particular case. Therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, the petition was allowed. The petitioner was admitted to bail subject to furnishing personal and surety bonds, not leaving the country without prior permission, not inducing or threatening witnesses, appearing before the police station on the first Monday of every month, and providing his address and contact details to the trial court, with an obligation to inform the court of any changes. Violation of these conditions would empower the court to consider cancellation of bail.

Facts

The petitioner, Parveen Kumar, sought regular bail in FIR No. 25 registered on January 18, 2022, at Police Station Manesar, District Gurugram, under Sections 120-B, 406, 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR was based on a complaint by Santlal, proprietor of SBN Corporation, alleging that the petitioner, impersonating an IPS Officer, induced him to issue cheques totaling Rs. 1,35,22,500/- and Rs. 1,66,32,000/- as security for securing work orders at NSG Manesar. The complainant alleged that the petitioner, in connivance with his wife and other family members, opened a bank account using fabricated documents, misappropriated the funds, and failed to return the money. No work order was issued. The petitioner was arrested on February 9, 2022, and investigation is complete with challan presented. The petitioner argued for bail citing completion of investigation, pendency of trial, his children's health, and co-accused being on bail. The State opposed bail, highlighting serious allegations, the petitioner being a habitual offender with five similar cases and alleged duping of approximately 100 crores, and the risk of absconding, committing similar offences, or intimidating witnesses.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail in FIR No. 25 registered under Sections 120-B, 406, 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC, considering the allegations of impersonation, inducement, and misappropriation of funds amounting to Rs. 1,66,32,000/-. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that he has been falsely implicated, investigation is complete, challan has been presented, and the trial is likely to take time. He highlighted his family circumstances, specifically mentioning his small children and one son suffering from low immunity. He also pointed out that co-accused have been granted bail and that he is on bail in other cases. He argued that the subject offences are triable by a Magistrate and his further detention would serve no useful purpose. Respondent-State's arguments: The State argued that there are serious allegations against the petitioner, who is a habitual offender with five more cases of a similar nature registered against him. They alleged that he has duped several other persons of huge amounts, approximately 100 crores. The State expressed concerns about the petitioner absconding, committing similar offences, or intimidating witnesses if granted bail.