Sunny Kumar vs. State Of Haryana

Facts

The petitioner, Sunny Kumar, an agent of SBI Bank, is accused in FIR No. 263 dated 29.10.2021, registered under Sections 379 and 420 IPC at Police Station Pillu Khera, District Jind. The complainant alleged that the petitioner facilitated the issuance of a credit card and subsequently, through fraudulent transactions on the complainant's mobile and credit cards (SBI and HDFC), caused a total loss of Rs. 1,39,483/-. The petitioner allegedly deleted transaction messages and emails from the complainant's phone. The petitioner has been in custody since 16.12.2021. The prosecution has filed a challan, but none of the nine cited witnesses have been examined. The petitioner is also involved in another FIR (No. 271 dated 16.11.2021) under Sections 420 and 379 IPC.

Held

The Court granted regular bail to the petitioner. The Court noted that the petitioner had been in custody since 16.12.2021 and the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. (challan) had been submitted. It was also observed that nine prosecution witnesses were cited, but none had been examined, indicating that the trial was not likely to conclude in the near future. Considering the period of custody undergone by the petitioner and the status of the trial, the Court found that further incarceration was not required. The Court explicitly stated that it was not commenting on the merits of the case. The petitioner was ordered to be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in light of the period of custody, completion of investigation, and the pendency of the trial? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that he has been in custody since 16.12.2021, the investigation is complete, and the trial is unlikely to conclude soon. He also contended that the prosecution's version of the amounts defalcated is contradictory and that a recovery of Rs. 1,22,000/- has been made. Therefore, further incarceration is not required. Respondent's (State of Haryana) Arguments: The State counsel argued that cybercrimes are on the rise and the period of incarceration alone should not be a ground for granting bail. However, the State counsel did not dispute that the challan has been filed and no prosecution witnesses have been examined. The State also highlighted the petitioner's involvement in another FIR.