Sandeep Kumar vs. State Of Haryana

Facts

The petitioner, Sandeep Kumar, filed a second petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking regular bail. He is accused in FIR No. 578 dated 04.10.2018, registered at Police Station City Fatehabad, District Fatehabad, under Sections 420, 120-B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978. The petitioner has been in judicial custody for 02 years, 11 months, and 25 days. The new ground for bail is the prolonged delay in the trial. The petitioner relies on a previous composite order dated 09.09.2022, where co-accused Kuldeep and Ajay Pal were granted bail. The prosecution alleges that the accused deceived 99 persons by promising to double their money through RTPS Life Care Private Limited, a chit fund company, with investments made via RTGS. The State opposed the bail, alleging the petitioner was a mastermind who swindled over Rs. 59 crores.

Held

The Court allowed the petition for regular bail. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India versus K.A. Najeeb, which held that long custody coupled with a remote possibility of timely trial conclusion obligates courts to release the accused. The Court also referred to Paresh Nathalal Chauhan versus State of Gujarat and others, where an accused involved in a Rs. 64 crore GST evasion case was released on bail after undergoing approximately 50% of the total sentence. In the present case, the petitioner had undergone 38 months of incarceration, which is almost half of the maximum sentence of seven years. The Court found that the petitioner's long judicial custody and the likelihood of a delayed trial justified granting bail. The apprehension of the State regarding flight risk was addressed by imposing stringent conditions. The Court explicitly stated that its observations were not to be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The petitioner was ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing bail/surety bonds, subject to conditions including surrendering his passport, appearing before the police station on the first Monday of every month, and keeping his mobile number activated.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail on the grounds of prolonged judicial custody and the likely delay in the conclusion of the trial, considering the summoning of additional accused and the large number of prosecution witnesses? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner has been in custody for nearly three years. The trial is not proceeding expeditiously, especially after the summoning of additional accused (Master Vijay Singh and Satish Beniwal) under Section 319 of Cr.P.C., which necessitates the trial to start afresh. The prosecution has 168 witnesses to examine. Co-accused Kuldeep and Ajay Pal, who have spent over three years in custody, have already been granted bail by a coordinate bench, citing the period of incarceration and the maximum sentence of seven years. The petitioner also claims to be a mere employee, unlike the co-accused who managed the company's affairs. Respondent's (State of Haryana) arguments: The State opposed the bail, alleging that the petitioners, in connivance, swindled the public of more than Rs. 59 crores and that the petitioner is a mastermind. An apprehension was expressed that the accused are a flight risk and may abscond. However, the State could not dispute the stage of the trial.