Sudhir Narang vs. State Of Haryana

Held

The Court granted regular bail to the petitioner. The Court considered the petitioner's age (29 years), his lack of criminal antecedents, and the fact that he had been in custody for over 5.5 months. Additionally, the Court took into account the prevailing COVID-19 pandemic and the likelihood of a significant delay in the conclusion of the trial. While not expressing an opinion on the merits of the case, the Court found it to be a fit case for granting the concession of regular bail. The petitioner was ordered to be released on furnishing requisite bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate. No specific issues were left undecided, as the primary issue was the grant of bail.

Facts

The petitioner, Sudhir Narang, sought regular bail in FIR No. 297 dated June 25, 2021, registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008. The FIR, based on secret information, alleged that the petitioner and co-accused were unauthorizedly selling mobile phones purchased at cheaper rates from online portals. It was further alleged that they cloned Apps to bypass purchase limits for bulk orders, with the petitioner allegedly making small profits. The petitioner was not named in the FIR but was implicated based on a co-accused's statement. No recovery was made from the petitioner, and there was no allegation of defrauding the government exchequer regarding input tax credit. The petitioner had been in custody for approximately 5.5 months, was 29 years old, and had no prior criminal record. The State conceded that no recovery was made from the petitioner and that the challan had been filed, but charges were yet to be framed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail in light of his age, period of custody, lack of criminal antecedents, and the absence of recovery or allegations of defrauding the government exchequer regarding input tax credit, considering the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and the likely delay in trial conclusion? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning principles of bail and Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that he was entitled to bail due to his young age, clean record, prolonged custody of 5.5 months, and the lack of direct allegations of defrauding the government exchequer or any recovery from him. The allegations were based on a co-accused's statement, and the profits made were stated to be small. Revenue/State's arguments: The State acknowledged that no recovery had been made from the petitioner and that the challan had been filed, but charges were yet to be framed. No specific arguments against bail were detailed beyond these factual admissions.