Harish Kumar Rampal vs. State Of Haryana

Facts

The petitioner, Harish Kumar Rampal, filed a petition under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in FIR No. 21/2021, registered on February 4, 2021, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, and 471 read with Section 120-B of the IPC at Police Station Sector 53, Gurugram. The State counsel informed the Court that the petitioner had died. The petitioner's counsel acknowledged that the petition had become infructuous due to the petitioner's death. The complainant's counsel noted that the deceased petitioner was in the process of selling property to repay amounts taken from the complainant, which were intended to be deposited as GST. The complainant sought liberty to pursue legal remedies to recover the amount from the deceased petitioner's estate.

Held

The Court held that the petition for regular bail had become infructuous due to the death of the petitioner, Harish Kumar Rampal. Consequently, the petition was disposed of on this ground. The Court acknowledged the complainant's submission that the deceased petitioner was in the process of selling property to repay amounts taken from the complainant, which were to be deposited as GST. While the bail petition was dismissed as infructuous, the Court explicitly stated that it would always be open for the complainant to institute proceedings for the enforcement of his rights, if any, in accordance with law, implying that recovery from the estate could be pursued through appropriate legal channels. No specific finding was made on the merits of the GST deposit issue itself, beyond acknowledging the complainant's claim.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petition for regular bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. survives when the petitioner has died, and if so, what is the implication for the proceedings? (Question of law) 2. Whether the complainant is entitled to pursue recovery of amounts from the estate of the deceased petitioner, particularly those intended for GST deposit, despite the petition becoming infructuous? (Question of mixed law and fact) Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner's counsel conceded that the petition had become infructuous due to the death of the petitioner. Respondent's (State) Argument: The State counsel informed the Court of the petitioner's death, leading to the petition becoming infructuous. Complainant's Argument: The complainant's counsel highlighted that the deceased petitioner was in the process of selling property to repay amounts taken from the complainant, which were to be deposited as GST. Liberty was sought to pursue legal remedies for recovery from the estate.