Rajender Garg vs. State Of Haryana

Facts

Two petitions, CRM-M-24311-2021 and CRM-M-25058-2021, were filed before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh seeking regular bail. The petitioners, Rajender Garg and Shyam Lal respectively, were implicated in FIR No. 178 dated 05.06.2021, registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, including 120B, 379, 411, 420, 467, 468, and 471. The FIR stemmed from the apprehension of a Canter vehicle carrying what was initially claimed to be aluminum scrap, but was found to contain bundles of new wires belonging to the Electricity Department. The driver of the Canter implicated Rajender Garg. Shyam Lal was nominated later. The investigation is complete, and challans have been presented.

Held

The Court allowed both petitions for regular bail. The Court noted that the custody period of the petitioners was not disputed, and it was also not disputed that the investigation was complete and challans had been presented. It was further noted that the petitioners were stated to be not involved in any other cases, except for one case under Section 323 IPC against one petitioner. The Court also observed that no recovery had been effected from the petitioners, and the State did not contend that the petitioners might influence witnesses, tamper with evidence, or flee from justice if released on bail. Therefore, considering the totality of circumstances and without commenting on the merits of the case, the Court granted bail subject to furnishing bail bonds and surety to the satisfaction of the trial court. The Court explicitly stated that its observations were for the purpose of deciding the bail petitions only and not an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to regular bail in light of the charges framed under Sections 120B/379/411/420/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, considering the completion of investigation and presentation of challan? The petitioner in CRM-M-24311-2021 argued that he deals in scrap, the apprehended vehicle and its contents did not belong to him, and the driver falsely named him. He also contended that the investigation is complete, nothing is to be recovered from him, and his continued custody would serve no purpose, especially as he is not involved in any other cases. The petitioner in CRM-M-25058-2021 argued that he was not named in the FIR, was nominated later based on a co-accused's statement, deals in scrap for over 25 years with all necessary licenses including a GST number, and had no connection to the vehicle or its contents. He also stated that the investigation is complete and challan presented, and he is only involved in one other case under Section 323 IPC. The State opposed bail, arguing that the offence is against the government and caused loss to the Electricity Department, despite not disputing the custody period or the completion of investigation and challan presentation.