Aashish Kumar vs. State Of Haryana

Facts

The petitioners, Aashish Kumar and Lokesh Sharma, sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 106 dated 13.03.2022, registered under Sections 120-B, 408, 467, 468, 471, 477-A, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, at Police Station Shivaji Nagar, District Gurugram. The FIR was filed by Jitendra Lamba, proprietor of LAMBA POLYMERS, alleging financial loss due to embezzlement and fraud by the petitioners. Lokesh Sharma, an accountant and field boy, was accused of manipulating bills of plastic granules sold to customers, causing a loss of lakhs to the company. Aashish Kumar was allegedly involved in receiving funds related to these fraudulent transactions. The petitioners had been in custody since 08.12.2022 and 08.05.2023, respectively. The prosecution's case hinged on documentary evidence, which was part of the challan. The complainant, the primary witness, had already been examined as PW2.

Held

The High Court allowed the petitions for bail. The Court considered that the petitioners had been in judicial custody for extended periods (08.12.2022 and 08.05.2023, respectively). It was noted that the case primarily rested on documentary evidence, which had already been collected and was part of the challan. The Court also acknowledged that the petitioners had no other criminal antecedents. A crucial factor was that the complainant, the main witness, had already been examined as PW2, diminishing the risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. The Court found that the trial was unlikely to conclude in the near future, with approximately 15 prosecution witnesses yet to be examined. In light of these circumstances, the Court deemed it fit to extend the concession of bail to the petitioners. The operative direction was that the petitioners, Aashish Kumar and Lokesh Sharma, be admitted to bail upon furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate. The Court explicitly stated that its observations were not to be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) given their prolonged custody and the stage of the trial? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning Section 439 Cr.P.C. and principles of bail). 2. Whether the petitioners' continued custody and the fact that the documentary evidence is already part of the challan warrant the grant of bail? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning principles of bail and evidence collection). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners' counsel contended that they had been in judicial custody for a significant period and that the case relied heavily on documentary evidence, which was already collected and part of the challan. They argued that there was no possibility of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, especially since the complainant, the material witness, had already been examined. They also stated that the petitioners had no other criminal antecedents. The counsel for petitioner Lokesh Sharma further argued that he was the 'kingpin' and had allegedly misappropriated Rs. 32 lakhs, which was deposited in Aashish Kumar's account. Revenue/State's Arguments: The learned State counsel, on instructions, did not dispute the stage of the trial or the fact that the case rested on documentary evidence. They also did not dispute that the petitioners were not involved in any other criminal case. However, they vehemently opposed the prayer for bail, reiterating the allegations leveled in the FIR.