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

Held

The Court allowed the petition for regular bail. The Court reiterated the fundamental principle that the right to a speedy trial is part of Article 21 of the Constitution and that pre-conviction detention should be as short as possible. It emphasized that while criminal antecedents are considered, the appreciation of evidence must be specific to the case at hand, not influenced by other pending cases. The Court referenced the case of "Baljinder Singh alias Rock vs. State of Punjab" to support the view that strict adherence to denying bail solely based on pending cases could lead to an unjust situation. The Court also referred to historical precedents like "Nikesh Tara chand Shah v. Union of India" and "Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab," which establish that bail is the rule and refusal is the exception, and bail should not be withheld as punishment. The judgment stressed the need for a humane and judicious exercise of discretion in granting bail, ensuring conditions are not illusory. Consequently, the petitioner was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court/duty magistrate. The Court explicitly stated that its observations were not an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

Facts

The petitioner, Parveen Kumar, sought regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 12 dated 10.01.2022, registered at Police Station Manesar, Gurugram, under Sections 120-B, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC. The FIR was filed by Rishab Farms Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Aurum Projects Pvt. Ltd., alleging a large-scale fraud involving the petitioner and others. The complainant, engaged in real estate, claimed to have submitted various documents, including GST certificates and EMD cheques, for supply orders of goods and services. The complainant alleged that despite fulfilling formalities and submitting substantial EMD amounts, no work orders were issued, and the EMDs were not returned. The FIR details a conspiracy involving the petitioner posing as an IPS officer posted at NSG Manesar, Gurugram, and using forged documents to open a bank account and commit financial fraud, allegedly cheating persons of over Rs. 100 Crores.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 12 dated 10.01.2022, registered at Police Station Manesar, Gurugram, under Sections 120-B, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC, considering the allegations of a large-scale financial fraud, conspiracy, forgery, and cheating. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued for bail based on the constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution, the principle that bail is the rule and refusal is the exception, and the need for a humane approach to incarceration. Reliance was placed on precedents emphasizing that pre-conviction detention should be minimized and that criminal antecedents should not automatically lead to denial of bail, citing "Baljinder Singh alias Rock vs. State of Punjab." The petitioner also highlighted that the grant of bail should not be punitive and that conditions for bail should be practically compliant. Respondent's Argument: The respondent (State of Haryana) did not present any specific arguments against the bail application in the provided text. The judgment notes the presence of the State counsel but does not record any submissions made by them.