Sukhwinder Singh vs. State Of Haryana

Facts

The petitioner, Sukhwinder Singh, sought regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 802 dated 13.11.2019, registered under Sections 406, 420 IPC and Section 24 of the Immigration Act, with Section 120-B IPC added later. The FIR was filed by Gurnam Singh, alleging that the petitioner's business, Krishna Overseas Education Solution, falsely promised to send his grandchildren to Canada for studies. The complainant paid Rs. 40,000 as processing fees and Rs. 5,96,000 as school fees, along with original documents, but the accused absconded. The petitioner claims he did not receive any amount and that Krishna Overseas Education Solution is a proprietorship concern of Balbir Kalia, registered under GST on 12.09.2019. The petitioner has been in custody since 21.11.2019, and challan was presented on 08.01.2020. A previous bail application was withdrawn on 05.02.2021.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to regular bail. The reasoning was based on several factors: the petitioner's prolonged custody since 21.11.2019, the fact that the challan has already been presented, and the offence being triable by a Magistrate. Crucially, the Court considered the bail granted to the co-accused, Sheetal Singh, vide order dated 28.04.2021, as a significant changed circumstance. The Court also took into account the recommendations of the High Powered Committee, particularly in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The ratio decidendi is that when a co-accused in a similar situation has been granted bail, and the petitioner has undergone substantial period of incarceration with challan presented, bail should be granted, especially considering broader recommendations for release during the pandemic. The operative direction was to enlarge the petitioner on regular bail, subject to furnishing adequate bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/concerned Duty Magistrate. The Court explicitly stated that nothing expressed would be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in light of changed circumstances, specifically the grant of bail to a co-accused and the petitioner's prolonged custody, considering the offences under Sections 406, 420 IPC and Section 24 of the Immigration Act, and Section 120-B IPC. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that he is not the owner of the concerned education solution, which is a proprietorship of Balbir Kalia. He emphasized that he did not receive any money from the complainant. He highlighted that a co-accused, Sheetal Singh, was granted bail by this Court on 28.04.2021, and that the petitioner has been in custody since 21.11.2019 with the challan already presented. He also pointed to the recommendations of the High Powered Committee for release during the COVID-19 pandemic. Respondent's arguments: The State of Haryana opposed the bail application, contending that there has been no change in circumstances since the petitioner's earlier bail prayer was dismissed as withdrawn on 05.02.2020.