Sajjan Kumar vs. State Of Haryana And Another

Facts

The petitioner, Sajjan Kumar, approached the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh seeking bail after his release was denied by the learned trial court. The case stems from FIR No. 300 dated 10.07.2023, registered under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 63 of the Copyright Act at Badshahpur Police Station, Gurugram. The complaint was filed by an authorized person from Agarwal Packers and Movers Ltd. (APML), alleging that Deepak Kaushik, with fraudulent intent, was impersonating APML by falsely using its name, logo, Chairman's picture, GST number, toll-free number, watermark, and website. Numerous complaints of cheating and impersonation against this company had been received by APML. The petitioner was arrested on 25.07.2023 and has been in custody since then.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. The Court noted that the allegations against the petitioner are a matter of trial, which is likely to take a considerable time. The petitioner had been in detention for over two months and his continued custody was based on unsubstantiated suspicion of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. The offenses alleged were non-violent, and his release would not pose a threat to society. The Court also considered that the petitioner is a 40-year-old family person and the sole breadwinner, whose family is in penury due to his absence and who has lost his livelihood. Given his family responsibilities, fixed abode, and clean record, he was not considered a flight risk. The Court concluded that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in further preventive custody. Therefore, the petition was allowed, and the petitioner was ordered to be released on bail, subject to furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Illaqa Magistrate. The Court clarified that its observations were for the limited purpose of the bail petition and would not influence the trial court's decision on the merits of the case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, Sajjan Kumar, is entitled to be released on bail, considering the allegations of impersonation and cheating under Section 420 IPC and Section 63 of the Copyright Act? The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner has no connection with the alleged offense or with Deepak Kaushik. He claimed the petitioner was running his own company, Vineet Roadline, and had no association with the complainant's company or co-accused Lalit Sharma, who is his nephew but with whom he has no business relations. The petitioner further submitted that he is not required for custodial interrogation, is not a flight risk, has no likelihood of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, and is not involved in any other case. The State counsel opposed the bail petition, citing the seriousness of the allegations and the possibility of the petitioner fleeing from trial, though admitting no other case was pending against him.