Sanjeev Kumar vs. State Of Punjab

Facts

The petitioner, Sanjeev Kumar, sought bail after his application was declined by the trial court. He is an undertrial in FIR No. 256 dated 15.12.2021, registered under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B of the IPC. The FIR was based on a complaint alleging that Goyal Sales Corporation, through its partners including the petitioner, misused powers and purchased goods worth Rs. 2,16,27,913/- from Bhawanigarh Kissan Co-operative Marketing-cum-Processing Society Limited, with Rs. 1,68,09,913/- remaining due. The petitioner allegedly became a nominal member against rules, and his GST number was not on record at the time. A cheque for Rs. 1 crore 66 lakh issued by the petitioner was dishonoured. The petitioner surrendered on 13.03.2023 and has been in custody since.

Held

The Court allowed the bail petition, holding that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. The Court noted that the challan (charge sheet) had been presented on 31.05.2023, indicating that the investigation was complete regarding the petitioner and he was not required for further custodial interrogation. With 27 prosecution witnesses and the next date of hearing being 28.08.2023, the commencement and conclusion of the trial were likely to take considerable time. The allegations against the petitioner were considered a matter for trial. The Court emphasized that bail allows an accused to maintain freedom until guilt is determined, and the petitioner had already been in custody for approximately five months. The Court found no probability of tampering with evidence as it had already been seized. The offenses were also characterized as non-violent. Considering the petitioner's family responsibilities (married, two minor children, ailing mother, sole breadwinner) and fixed abode, the Court concluded he posed no flight risk and was not a threat to society. Therefore, keeping him in further preventive custody served no useful purpose. The petitioner was ordered to be released on furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court, with liberty to the prosecution to seek cancellation if he involved himself in any further offense. The Court explicitly stated that its observations were for the limited purpose of the bail petition and would not influence the trial court's decision on the merits.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, Sanjeev Kumar, is entitled to bail in FIR No. 256 dated 15.12.2021, registered under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B of the IPC, considering his period of custody and the stage of investigation. Petitioner's Arguments: - The petitioner is not a partner of Goyal Sales Corporation or an administrative member of the society and is not known to the complainant. - He is being implicated due to family relations with co-accused Abhishek Goyal. - He had only advanced money as a loan to Abhishek Goyal, with transactions evidenced by loan installments and a dishonoured cheque due to signature mismatch, not related to the society's goods. - No motive can be attributed to him, and there is no direct evidence against him. - He is not required for custodial interrogation and co-accused have been granted bail. - He surrendered voluntarily and has been in custody for five months. Respondent's (State of Punjab) Arguments: - The petitioner has committed a serious offense, and granting bail may lead to him fleeing from justice. - Bail granted to co-accused was under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., and the petitioner cannot claim parity. - Two other cases of a similar nature are pending against the petitioner.