Sital Singh @ Sheetal Singh vs. State Of Haryana

Facts

The petitioner, Sital Singh @ Sheetal Singh, is seeking regular bail in FIR No. 802 dated 13.11.2019, registered under the Immigration Act and Sections 406, 420, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR was filed by Gurnam Singh, alleging that the petitioner and others defrauded him of approximately Rs. 7 lakhs. The complainant intended to send his grandchildren to Canada for studies and paid processing fees and school fees to Krishna Overseas Education Solution, represented by the petitioner and Smt. Navjot Kaur. The petitioner claims he was an employee of the proprietorship concern, Krishna Overseas Education Solution, owned by Balbir Kalia, which was registered under GST. The petitioner was arrested on 25.08.2020, and the challan has been presented. The petitioner also has involvement in nine other similar cases, in most of which he has been granted bail.

Held

The Court allowed the petition for regular bail. The Court considered that the petitioner had been in custody since 25.08.2020, the challan had been presented, and the offences were triable by a Magistrate. These factors, combined with the petitioner's submission that the trial might take time to conclude, led the Court to deem it appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the case. The petitioner was ordered to be released on bail subject to furnishing adequate bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/concerned Duty Magistrate.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. given his period of custody, the stage of the proceedings, and the nature of the alleged offences? The petitioner argued that he has been in custody since 25.08.2020, the challan has been presented, and the offence is triable by a Magistrate, suggesting the trial may take time. He also contended that he was merely an employee of the proprietorship concern, Krishna Overseas Education Solution, owned by Balbir Kalia, and not the owner. The petitioner highlighted that Balbir Kalia admitted to receiving money and expressed willingness to refund it. The petitioner also submitted details of other cases where he has been granted bail. The State opposed the bail application, arguing that the petitioner has a criminal antecedent, being involved in nine similar cases.