Kuldeep vs. State Of Haryana

Facts

The petitioners, Kuldeep and Ajay Pal @ Dilbag, are accused in FIR No. 578 dated 04.10.2018, registered under Sections 420, 406, 120-B, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 03, 04, 05, and 06 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978. They are seeking regular bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. This is their second bail application, as their previous petitions were dismissed over a year prior. The prosecution alleges that the petitioners, along with others, deceived complainants by promising to double their money through investments in RTPS Life Care Private Limited, a chit fund company. Kuldeep has been in custody since 22.06.2019, and Ajay Pal since 24.04.2019, having spent over three years incarcerated. Charge has been framed, and some prosecution witnesses examined, but additional accused have been summoned, potentially requiring the trial to start afresh with 168 witnesses to be examined.

Held

The Court allowed the bail petitions, holding that the petitioners deserve to be released on bail. The reasoning was based on the long custody of the accused coupled with the remote possibility of a timely conclusion of the trial, which makes it obligatory for the courts to release the accused on bail, as held by the Supreme Court in Union of India versus K.A. Najeeb. The Court also referred to Paresh Nathal Chauhan versus State of Gujarat and others, where an accused involved in a GST evasion case of Rs. 64 crores was released on bail after undergoing approximately 50% of the total sentence. The petitioners have undergone 38 and 40 months of incarceration, which is almost half of the maximum seven-year sentence. The Court found that the petitioners deserve to be released on bail, and the apprehension of the State could be addressed by imposing stringent conditions. The operative directions were to release both petitioners on bail upon furnishing heavy bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate. Specific conditions were imposed, including surrendering passports, appearing before the police station on the first Monday of every month, and providing activated mobile numbers to the SHO. The Court clarified that these observations were not an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to regular bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in light of the prolonged period of custody and the potential delay in the conclusion of the trial, considering the provisions of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 and the Indian Penal Code, 1860? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners have spent over three years in custody. The summoning of additional accused under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. will likely cause the trial to start afresh, with 168 witnesses to be examined. They have been involved in two other criminal cases with similar allegations but were not named in those FIRs and were released on bail. The maximum sentence for the offences is seven years, and they have undergone almost half of it. They rely on the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India versus K.A. Najeeb and the High Court's decision in Paresh Nathal Chauhan versus State of Gujarat and others. Respondent's arguments: The State, through its counsel and the complainant's counsel, opposes the bail petitions, alleging that the petitioners, in connivance, swindled the public of over Rs. 59 crores and are the masterminds behind the scam. They express an apprehension that the accused are a flight risk and may abscond. The State counsel could not dispute the stage of the trial.