Deepak Chanana vs. State Of Haryana

Facts

The petitioner, Deepak Chanana, sought regular bail in FIR No. 102 dated 22.04.2022, registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC at Police Station Civil Lines, Gurugram. The FIR was filed by M/s Invent Info Solutions alleging that the accused persons ordered hardware items worth Rs. 60,88,150/-, made a partial payment of Rs. 19 lacs, and issued dishonoured cheques. The investigation revealed that the accused allegedly used fake companies, M/s Naya Jewels and M/s Fresh Grow, for transactions. The petitioner was arrested on 18.01.2023, and during investigation, it was disclosed that he received Rs. 5 lacs as commission for facilitating the sale of laptops purchased from the complainant companies to Tarun Jain, using GST bills from a fake company. A report under Section 173(2) Cr.PC was presented against the petitioner and co-accused.

Held

The Court allowed the petition for regular bail. The Court referred to its own precedent in Maninder Sharma Vs. State Tax Officer, State, Mobile Wing, Jalandhar, Punjab, which held that in economic offences where investigation is complete and a final report is filed, denial of bail should be the exception rather than the rule, provided the triple test is satisfied. The Court noted that the veracity of the prosecution case would be adjudicated during trial. It found no serious apprehension expressed by the State regarding the petitioner absconding, tampering with evidence, or influencing witnesses. Given that the petitioner was in custody since 18.01.2023 and none of the 29 prosecution witnesses had been examined, the trial was not likely to conclude soon, making further incarceration unwarranted. The petitioner was released on bail subject to furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds, with conditions including appearing before the police station monthly, informing about involvement in other crimes, and furnishing an FDR of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The Court explicitly stated it was not commenting on the merits of the case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail in view of his alleged involvement in a case involving economic offences, the completion of investigation, and the filing of a report under Section 173(2) Cr.PC? (Based on Section 439 Cr.PC and general principles of bail in economic offences). Petitioner's Arguments: - The case, at best, amounts to a civil dispute. - The petitioner only received a commission of Rs. 5 lacs for facilitating the sale of laptops, and therefore, no criminal liability could be affixed upon him. - The petitioner has been in custody since 18.01.2023, no prosecution witnesses have been examined, and a co-accused, Virendra Rai, has been granted similar bail. State's Arguments: - The petitioner and co-accused have cheated the complainant of Rs. 1,06,00,000/-, indicating the serious nature of the allegations. - The petitioner is in custody since 18.01.2023, no prosecution witnesses have been examined, and one co-accused has been granted bail.