Mohit Kumar vs. State Of Haryana And Another

Facts

The petitioner, Mohit Kumar, is seeking regular bail in FIR No. 128 dated 07.07.2021, registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC at Police Station Sector 53, Gurugram. The FIR was filed by complainant Pankit Gajjar, alleging a scam involving Manish Sharma and Varun Saxena, who posed as employees of Customer Relationship Care Department (CRCD) and Asha Infotech Solutions, associated with IRDAI. The complainant was induced to pay a total of Rs. 24,50,020/- over a week for the release of insurance funds, with amounts including GST being paid into the accounts of Manish Sharma and Asha Infotech Solutions. The petitioner was taken into custody on 07.07.2021. A challan has been filed, but charges are yet to be framed. The petitioner contends he was not named in the FIR, Rs. 14,70,000/- has been recovered from the co-accused, and a compromise has been reached with the complainant.

Held

The Court allowed the petition for regular bail. The Court noted that the petitioner had been in custody since 07.07.2021 and that the challan had been presented, although charges were yet to be framed. It was also observed that the petitioner was not involved in any other case and had clean antecedents. A significant factor in the Court's decision was the compromise effected between the parties. The Court further acknowledged that the present case was exclusively triable by a Magistrate. Based on these considerations, including the period of custody, the stage of proceedings, the clean antecedents, the compromise, and the nature of the trial, the Court ordered the release of the petitioner on bail, subject to furnishing appropriate bail and surety bonds. No issues were expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail under Section 439 Cr.PC, considering his period of custody, the stage of the proceedings, his clean antecedents, and the fact that the case is exclusively triable by a Magistrate? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner was not named in the FIR, which was initially registered against Varun Saxena and Manish Sharma. It was further submitted that a significant amount of Rs. 14,70,000/- had already been recovered from the bank accounts of the named accused. Crucially, the petitioner's counsel highlighted that the complainant had compromised the matter with the intervention of community elders and would not object to the grant of bail to the petitioner, referring to a compromise dated 30.01.2022. Revenue/State's Arguments: The counsel for the complainant appeared and accepted the factum of compromise, stating no objection to the petitioner being granted regular bail.