13.05.2025 Arun Kumar Sharma @ Arun Sharma v. CORAM: HON'BLE
Case Details
CRM-M-21243-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 307 CRM-M-21243-2025 Date of Decision: 13.05.2025 Arun Kumar Sharma @ Arun Sharma ...Petitioner State of Haryana …Respondent Versus CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Pankaj Mehta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Naveen Kumar Sheoran, D.A.G., Haryana. Mr. Vijay Pal, Advocate for the complainant. ANOOP CHITKARA, J. ****
Legal Reasoning
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 514 22.08.2024 City Hansi, District Hisar 406, 420, 120-B IPC 1. The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up before this Court under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking regular bail. 2. In paragraph 17 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents. 3. Status report dated 08.05.2025 and custody certificate dated 10.05.2025 filed by State counsel today in the Court are taken on record. 4. The facts and allegations are being taken from the status report filed by the State, which reads as follows: 2. “That the brief facts of the case are that a complaint was received in the office of Superintendent of Police, Hansi for initiating action against Manbir Singh, Dalbir Singh, Venkata Ramana Murti and Kamaludin Khan with the allegations of committing fraud with the father of the complainant. As per the allegations against the accused they duped the father of the complainant with an assurance that they would get him appointed as Governor of Andaman Nicobar Island. Under the garb of this assurance, they took Rs.10,45,00,000/- (Ten Crore Forty five Lacs) including Rs.8,45,00,000/- (Eight Crore Forty five Lacs) by bank 1 JYOTI 2025.05.16 12:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-21243-2025 transactions and Rs.2,00,00,000/- (Two Crore) in cash. After the fraud was detected, co-accused Manbir Singh returned Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten Lacs) to his father. In pursuance of the investigation of the case bank statements of concerned banks were collected by the investigating officer and found the allegations to be true. It is further submitted that the allegations against the co-accused Kamaludin are that in the month of February, 2021; complainant and his father were present in the house No. 830, Sector 17-A, Gurugram of their relative. Co-accused Kamaluddin came and told them that he had a word with co-accused Manbir Singh and another accused namely Venkata Ramana Murti and they would soon get him appointed as Deputy Governor of Andaman and Nicobar. He asked his father to give him Rs.20,00,000/- (Twenty Lacs) as a donation of his NGO. According to his request, his father Late Surender Malik transferred Rs.20,00,000/- (Twenty Lacs) in the Bank account of NGO, Umed Health Care Society. After few days, his father alongwith his cousin Mandeep went to the office of Kamaluddin and paid Rs.20,00,000/-(Twenty Lacs) in cash. During the course of the investigation of the case Rs.20,00,000/- (Twenty lacs) were found to be transferred from account No.2011211xxxxx of AU Small finance Bank to co-accused Kamaluddin’s NGO Umed Health Care Society. It is further submitted that during the investigation of the case it has been found that the allegations against the co-accused Dalbir Singh are that he alongwith another accused namely Manvir Singh grabbed Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) and alleged amount was credited in the account No.236810xxxxx Canara Bank of co-accused Dalbir Singh from the account No.534901xxxxx Bank of Baroda namely Surender Malik i.e. father of the complainant on dated 14.09.2020. It is pertinent to mention here that when complainant's father Surender Malik detected the fraud, co-accused namely Dalbir Singh returned Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten Lacs) to account No.5349010xxxxx Bank of Baroda namely Surender Malik by co-accused Dalbir Singh from his account No.236810xxxxxx Canara Bank on dated 02.12.2022. An amount Rs.50,00,000/- (Fifty Lacs) was credited in the account No.113305xxxxx ICICI Bank in the name of Sunny Sales Corporation from the account No.5349010xxxxxx Bank of Baroda namely Surender Malik i.e. father of the complainant on dated 11.09.2020. An amount Rs.1,50,00,000/- (One Crore Fifty Lacs) was credited in the account No.003105xxxxx ICICI Bank in the name of Rolex Trading Corporation from the account No.17311000xxxxx HDFC Bank namely Surender Malik i.e. father of the complainant on dated 11.09.2020. An amount of Rs.2,00,00,000/- (Two Crore) was credited in the account No.003105xxxxx ICICI Bank in the 2 JYOTI 2025.05.16 12:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-21243-2025 name of Rolex Trading Corporation from the account No. 5349010xxxxx Bank of Baroda namely Surender Malik i.e. father of the complainant on dated 18.12.2020 and 19.12.2020. An amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) was credited in the account No.695605xxxxx ICICI Bank in the name of Mahadev Traders from the account No.534901xxxxx Bank of Baroda namely Surender Malik i.e. father of the complainant on dated 18.12.2020. An amount of Rs.95,00,000/- (Ninty Five Lacs) was credited in the account No.003105xxxxx ICICI Bank in the name of Rolex Trading Corporation from the account No.5349010xxxxxx Bank of Baroda namely Surender Malik i.e. father of the complainant on dated 13.01.2021. An amount of Rs.2,50,00,000/- (Two Crore Fifty Lacs) was credited in the account No.69560xxxxx ICICI Bank in the name of Mahadev Traders from the account No.201121xxxxx AU Small Finance namely Surender Malik i.e. father of the complainant on dated 13.01.2021, 28.01.2021, 03.02.2021 and 04.02.2021. An amount of Rs.20,00,000/- (Twenty Lacs) was credited in the account No.031101xxxxx ICICI Bank in the name of Umed Health Care Society from the account No.201121xxxxx AU Small Finance namely Surender Malik i.e. father of the complainant on dated 06.02.2021. It is specifically submitted that Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One crore) cash was given to co-accused Manbir and Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One crore)
Legal Reasoning
cash was given to co-accused Shri Mallah Venkata Ramana Murti and Rs.20,00,000/- cash was given to co-accused Kamalludin Khan.” 5. The petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and his family. 6. The State as well as counsel for the complainant opposes bail and refers to the status report. 7. It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the status report, which read as follows: “12. xxxx A. It is pertinent to mention here that a total amount of Rs.10.45 Crore was grabbed by the accused persons in those accounts which were opened on the basis of ID’s which were provided by the present petitioner and name of the present petitioner was disclosed by the Siya Ram Sharma in his statement under Section 164 CrPC and his disclosure statement which is annexed herewith as Annexure R-1. B. It submits here that name of the present petitioner was surfaced by the Siya Ram Sharma in his disclosure statement as well as statement under 3 JYOTI 2025.05.16 12:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-21243-2025 Section 164 CrPC. C. It submits here that account has been opened on the basis of those ID’s and same were provided by the present petitioner.” REASONING: 8. Allegations against the petitioner are that he in connivance with other co-accused cheated the father of the complainant for a massive amount with a lure to get him appointed as governor of Andaman and Nicobar. Name of the petitioner has been disclosed in the disclosure statement of co-accused Siya Ram Sharma. 9. However, pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing. As per paragraph 4 of the bail petition, the petitioner has been in custody since 21.10.2024. As per the custody certificate dated 10.05.2025, the petitioner’s total custody in this FIR is 06 months and 17 days. 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 for further pre- trial incarceration at this stage. 10. Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for bail. 11. Given above, provided the petitioner is not required in any other case, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the FIR captioned above subject to furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accepting the surety, the concerned Court must be satisfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused. 12. While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioner shall mention the following personal identification details: 1. AADHAR number 2. Passport number (If available) and when the attesting officer/court considers it appropriate or considers the accused a flight risk. 3. Mobile number (If available) 4. E-Mail id (If available) 13. This order is subject to the petitioner’s complying with the following terms. 14. The petitioner shall abide by all statutory bond conditions and appear before the concerned Court(s) on all dates. The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence, influence, browbeat, pressurize, induce, threaten, or promise, directly or indirectly, any witnesses, Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case or dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police or the JYOTI 2025.05.16 12:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 4 CRM-M-21243-2025 Court. 15. This bail is conditional, and the foundational condition is that if the petitioner indulges in any non-bailable offense, the State may file an application for cancellation of this bail before the Sessions Court, which shall be at liberty to cancel this bail. 16. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 17. A certified copy of this order would not be needed for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Petitioner can download this order along with case status from the official web page of this Court and attest it to be a true copy. If the attesting officer wants to verify its authenticity, such an officer can also verify its authenticity and may download and use the downloaded copy for attesting bonds. 18. Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any,
Decision
stand disposed of. 13.05.2025 Jyoti-II Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Yes No. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE JYOTI 2025.05.16 12:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 5