Manjinder jinder Singh Cheema v. State of Pun of Punjab
Case Details
CRM-M- -34954-2025 1- -1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA IN CHANDIGA PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT DIGARH 229 CRM-M-34954-2025 2025 Date of Decision: 4.11.2025 Manjinder jinder Singh Cheema v. State of Pun of Punjab …Petitioner. …Respondent. CORAM: AM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE AA CE AARADHNA SAWHNEY. Present: Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Senior Ad Mr. Utkrant Mahajan, Advoca nior Advocate with dvocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gautam Thapar, Senior DA nior DAG, Punjab. **** AARADHN ADHNA SAWHNEY, J. (Oral) 1. Petitioner, an accused in case n case FIR No. 141 dated 02.09.20 .2019, registered tered against him for offences under under Sections 420, 120-B of India f Indian Penal Code l Code, at Police Station Gurdaspur, aspur, District Gurdaspur, has filed th iled the present peti nt petition under Section 483 of BNSS BNSS for grant of bail. 2. The facts as can be inferred erred from the documents on record b cord be noticed her ed hereinbelow:- Gurmeet Singh, a retired A d Army personnel, son of Sodaga dagar Singh, resi resident of Dholewal, District Pa t Pathankot, set the criminal law law in motion by by filing a complaint against th st the Managing Director, Directo rector, Branch Ma Manager, Cashier etc. of KIM Inve Investment Ltd., Gurdaspur, allegin leging therein tha that company officials had lured lured him to invest/deposit his har hard earned mon money in the shape of FDR in the the policies/schemes of the compan pany, assuring th g that he would receive double the e the amount invested after expiry iry of GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.07 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -34954-2025 2- -2 some perio period. Relying on the assurance ance given by the agents and oth other officials of ls of the company, money was depos eposited but shockingly enough, wh , what to talk of r of receiving double the money so so invested, even the original mone money was also no so not received back by him. Shock hockingly enough, neither the officia ficials were respo esponding, the office of complaina ainant was also found closed. In a In all, fraud of ap of approximately Rs.13 crores is al is alleged to have been committed b ted by the Manag naging Director, Director and othe other officials of the company. In th In the incident, n t, not only the complainant but sev t several others similarly situated ted as him have ve lost their hard earned money oney. On receipt of this complain plaint, enquiry wa y was conducted. Finding substan stance in the allegations levelled, lled, a formal cas
Facts
case vide FIR No. 141 dated 02.0 02.09.2019, was registered u/s 42 420, 120-B of In of Indian Penal Code, at Police Stat Station Gurdaspur. It is not disputed that initially itially the FIR was registered against th ainst the Director an ctor and Cashier of KIM Infrastructure ucture and Developers Ltd. Real Estat l Estate, namely, Ra ly, Ravinder Singh and Krishan Kum n Kumar, respectively. Subsequentl quently, present pe nt petitioner, whose name figured gured in the statements of witnesse itnesses recorded un ded under Section 161 of Code of Cr of Criminal Procedure, as also again against whom spec specific allegations were levelled by lled by complainant, when he appeare ppeared in the witn e witness box, was summoned as an as an accused on an application und n under Section 319 319 of Code of Criminal Procedure cedure moved by the complainant. Application for grant of bail m bail moved by petitioner was dismisse smissed by learned earned Judicial Magistrate Ist Clas Class, Gurdaspur, vide order date r dated 25.4.2025. 2025. The same was affirmed by lea by learned Additional Sessions Judg s Judge, Gurdaspur, aspur, in terms of order dated 15.5 d 15.5.2025. Aggrieved of which, th ich, the present peti nt petition has been filed for grant of b nt of bail. GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.07 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -34954-2025 3- -3 3. Learned counsel for the petit e petitioner submits that petitioner ha ner has been falsel falsely implicated in the present case nt case. He never lured complainant o inant or other inves investors to invest their money. Prec . Precisely, for this reason, he was n was not arrayed as ed as accused in the FIR. After in fter investigation, he was found to b d to be innocent. I cent. It is further the submission of lea
Legal Reasoning
strong prima facie case, depe depending upon the fact situation an and period of incarceration, the pr presence of antecedents may not not be a ground to deny bail. There ere may be a case where a Court ca can grant bail only on the gro grounds of long incarceration. Th The presence of antecedents may not be relevant in such a case. In In a given case, the Court may may grant default bail. Again, the antecedents of the accused ar are irrelevant in such a case. Thu Thus, depending upon the peculiar liar facts, the Court can grant ba bail notwithstanding the existence nce of the antecedents.” 7. Factual aspects of the case lea leading to the registration of the FI FIR have been been noticed hereinabove. In view view of the settled position of law law as referred to to above and submissions advan advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, ioner, but without commenting further urther on the merits of the case, the fa fact that petition etitioner has been in custody since 14 14.03.2025, his further incarceratio ceration would not not only be violative of his rights un under Article 21 of the Constitutio stitution of India, including right to speedy trial trial but would also be against the principle of “Bail is a general rule and nd incarceration is an exception” n” as held by Ho Hon’ble Supreme Court in Datara taram vs. State of Uttar Pradesh an and another, 20 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131. 8. Resultantly, petitioner is grant s granted the concession of bail subje subject to his furni s furnishing bail bonds along with two th two sound sureties in the sum of Rs of Rs.5 lakhs each each to the satisfaction of learn learned trial Court/Duty Magistra agistrate concerned. erned. The petitioner shall abide by the by the following conditions:- GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.07 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -34954-2025 6- -6 (i) The petitioner will not not tamper with the evidence durin during the trial. (ii) The petitioner will ill not pressurize/ e intimidate the th prosecution witnesses. (iii) The petitioner shall no l not leave the country without prio prior urt. permission of the trial Court. (iv) The petitioner shall not l not commit an offence similar to th to the offence of which, he is an acc accused, or for commission of whic which he is suspected of. (v) The petitioner shall n ll not directly or indirectly coerc oerce, induce, threaten or promise to ise to any person acquainted with th ith the facts of the case so as to dissu dissuade him/her from disclosing suc g such facts to the Court or to any any police officer or tamper with th th the evidence in any manner. (vi) The petitioner shall not berty. not in any manner misuse his liberty (vii) The petitioner shall f ll furnish his address and mobi obile number to the Trial Court fo rt forthwith and shall not change th ge the same till the conclusion of the f the trial and in case for any reaso eason, the petitioner seeks to chang ange any of the aforesaid, the sam same shall be done only with prio prior intimation to the learned Tri Trial Court, stating the reason for th for the same. (viii) The petitioner will appe appear before the trial Court on eac n each and every date fixed, unless i ess is exempted by a specific order der of Court. (ix) The trial Court/Duty M ty Magistrate may impose any oth other condition, as deemed app g appropriate while releasing the th petitioner. 9. Accordingly, the present petiti t petition is allowed and it is made cle clear that in case in case there is any breach of the afore e aforesaid conditions, the State shall b shall be at liberty t erty to seek cancellation of bail as ail as granted to the petitioner by th by this order. GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.07 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -34954-2025 7- -7 10.
Arguments
of learned counsel that in pursuance o ance of order dated dated 19.5.2025 passed by Hon’ble on’ble Supreme Court of India in Wr Writ Petition (C n (Crl.) No. 394 of 2024 titled as Ra Ravinder Singh Sidhu v. The Sta State of Punjab jab and others, trial of the present c esent case along with other FIRs of th s of the like nature nature pertaining to State of Punjab (as jab (as mentioned in para 15 of the sa the said order) has r) has been transferred to District M rict Mohali. All the FIRs have bee ve been clubbed tog ed together and FIR No. 198 of 2018 f 2018 has been treated as ‘lead’ cas case. Thus, the l , the likelihood of the trial being com g completed in the near future is qui is quite remote. Learned counsel next conten contends that the accused, who wa ho was specifically ifically named in the FIR, has since be nce been granted the concession of ba of bail by the lear e learned Magistrate vide order date r dated 5.8.2024, which on account o ount of having rem g remained unchallenged, has attain attained finality. Towards the en he end, learned cou ed counsel contends that considering t ering that petitioner has been in custod custody since 14.3. 14.3.2025 till today and investigat estigations qua him are complete, h lete, his further inca er incarceration would not serve any u e any useful purpose as the same wou would not only be violative of his rights under nder Article 21 of the Constitution ution of India, inclu including right to speedy trial but w would also be against the princip rinciple of “Bail is a general rule and incarcera ceration is an exception” as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dataram vs. State of Uttar Pradesh an and another, 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131. 131. Prayer for allowing the petitio petition has been m made. GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.07 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -34954-2025 4- -4 4. Learned State counsel has opp opposed the request for grant of ba bail on the grou ground that in view of the magnitu agnitude of fraud involved, no lenie lenient view deserv deserves to be taken in favour of pet petitioner. On a query being raise raised by this Co Court, it was fairly admitted that that petitioner was not named in the FIR, neithe neither he was arrayed as accused, bu but subsequently, during the cours course of trial, on an application under Sectio Section 319 of Cr.P.C., he (P) wa was summoned oned as an accused. Petition has also also been opposed on the ground th that petitioner ioner is a person of questionable past antecedents and in case the concession ession of bail is granted to him, the the likelihood of his fleeing from the process of of justice by not appearing in the the Court, over-awing complaina plainant and other related witnesses is quite high. Prayer for dismissal of the petitio petition has been m made. 5. I have heard learned counsel unsel for the parties and have peruse perused the docume ocuments on record. 6. Recently, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Abhimanue etc. Vs. Sta State of Kerala, ala, 2025(4) RCR (Criminal) 382, held as under:- “23. Our attention was also invited to the status report filed led by the State, to indicate the var various criminal antecedents of the appellants. Suffice it to say, however, that such antecedents nts by themselves cannot constitute ute a ground for denial of bail. In th this context, a useful reference m may be made to the decision of of a coordinate Bench of this C Court in Ayub Khan v. State ate of Rajasthan, 2024 SCC Onlin nline SC 3763 of which one of of us (Augustine George Masih, J.) was a member. The releva levant paragraph therefrom is extrac tracted below: GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.07 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -34954-2025 5- -5 10. The presence of the an antecedents of the accused is on only one of the several considerat erations for deciding the prayer for bail made by him. In a given iven case, if the accused makes out out a
Decision
In view of the above, it is cla t is clarified that the observations mad ns made herein are l n are limited for the purpose of prese f present proceedings and would not b d not be construed a trued as an opinion on the merits of the s of the case and the trial would procee proceed independen endently of the aforesaid observations ations. .2025 04.11.2025 gbs NEY) (AARADHNA SAWHNEY) JUDGE Whether Speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.07 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document