The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted bail in 4.61 crores revenue fraud case as there is no justification for further pre-trial incarceration
The petitioner, Birender Singh, incarcerated in the FIR captioned above, for committing revenue fraud to the extent of more than 4.61 crores, has come up before the High Court under Section 439 CrPC seeking bail.
The petitioner’s counsel prayed for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and is also voluntarily agreeable to the condition that till the conclusion of the trial before the trial court, the petitioner shall keep only one mobile number, which is mentioned in AADHAR card, and within fifteen days of release from prison undertakes to disconnect all other mobile numbers. The petitioner contended that the further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family.
The possibility of the accused influencing the investigation, tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, and the likelihood of fleeing justice, can be taken care of by imposing elaborative and stringent conditions. In Sushila Aggarwal v. State NCT of Delhi, the Constitutional Bench held that unusually, subject to the evidence produced, the Courts can impose restrictive conditions.
A Single Bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara observed that “The petitioner is in custody since 24.06.2021. Given the penal provisions invoked viz-a-viz pre-trial custody, coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allegations, and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability further pre-trial incarceration at this stage, subject to the compliance of terms and conditions mentioned in this order. Thus, the previous criminal history of the petitioner is not being considered strictly at this stage as a factor for denying bail.”
The Court also directed the petitioner to furnish personal bond of Rs. Ten thousand (INR 10,000/) and to give one surety of Rs. Twenty-five thousand (INR 25,000/-), to the satisfaction of the concerned court, and in case of non-availability, to any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate.
The Court further noted that if the petitioners fail to comply with this condition, then on this ground alone, the bail might be cancelled, and the complainant may file any such application for the cancellation of bail, and State shall file the said application.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
