Kuldeep Choudhary v. State of Punjab
Case Details
CRM-M-41139-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1 CRM-M-41139-2025 Reserved on: 09.09.2025 Pronounced on: 24.09.2025 Kuldeep Choudhary ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Sahil Gupta, Advocate and Ms. Dolli Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Jasdev Singh Thind, DAG, Punjab. ANOOP CHITKARA, J. ****
Legal Reasoning
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 187 25.11.2024 Cantonment 316(4), 344, 61(2) BNS District Amritsar (Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2) of BNS added later on) 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. Per paragraph 19 of the bail petition as well as custody certificate dated 08.09.2025, the petitioner has no criminal antecedents. 3. The facts and allegations are being taken from the reply filed by the State, which reads as follows: “That the deponent humbly submits that the present case FIR no. 187 dated 25.11.2024 for offences under Sections 316 (4), 344, 61 (2) BNS, Police Station Cantonment, Amritsar was registered based on the written complaint submitted by the complainant namely Salil Mahajan, Chartered Accountant of Amandeep Healthcare Private Limited wherein allegations were leveled against the accused Avinash Kumar, who was working as Senior Accountant at Amandeep Hospital, G.T. Road, Model Town, Amritsar for misappropriating/embezzling huge amount by committing fraud and forgery, by way of transferring more than Rs. 3,00,00,000/- ANJU RANI 2025.09.24 16:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 1 CRM-M-41139-2025 2 (Three crore rupees) with the help of his brother Chaman, father Kamlesh Kumar, mother Anjana Devi, wife Shikha and sister-in-law Mandeep from the current accounts of Amandeep 5 Nursing College, Jethuwal,
Legal Reasoning
Amandeep BR Medicity, Srinagar, Congenital Anomaly Treatment Trust (CATT), Avtar Medicos and the personal account of Dr. Avtar Singh to different accounts belonging to him, his relatives/friends & associates. The detailed contents of the complaint as given by the complainant and contents of FIR No. 187 dated 25.11.2024 (supra) is annexed as Annexure P-1 with the present petition and may kindly be read as part of this paragraph and are not reproduced here for the sake of brevity.” 4. 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 their family. Counsel further submits that the petitioner would have no objection whatsoever to any stringent conditions that this Court may impose, including that if the petitioner repeats the offense or commits any non-bailable offense which provides for a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years, the State may file an application to revoke this bail before the concerned Court having jurisdiction over this FIR, which shall have the authority to cancel this bail, and may do so at their discretion, to which the petitioner shall have no objection. 5. 6. The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply. It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the reply, which read as follows: “The role of the petitioner 31. That it is submitted that the present petitioner Kuldeep Choudhary in connivance with the main accused Avinash Kumar and other co-accused persons Narendra Choudhary and Parveen Kumar, created a fake firm namely Sangiwal Constructions Private Limited and got opened its account in the name of co-accused Kuldeep Choudhary and Parveen Kumar and thereafter he got transferred huge misappropriated amount of Rs. 60,00,000/- in this account from the account of Amandeep Hospital and Rs. 3,82,800/- from the personal account of the main accused Avinash Kumar, which was further transferred to different accounts from the account of above said Sangiwal Construction Private Limited on the same day by the present petitioner Kuldeep Choudhary and co-accused persons. The verification qua these accounts is being carried out during the course of investigation of the present case.” REASONING: 7. ANJU RANI 2025.09.24 16:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 2 Nature of the evidence is digital in nature in this case, investigation has already CRM-M-41139-2025 concluded and no other case is pending against the petitioner. There is sufficient primafacie evidence connecting the petitioner with the alleged crime. However, pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing. 3 8. Per the custody certificate dated 08.09.2025, the petitioner’s total custody in this FIR is 06 months & 01 day. 9. The law of bail, like any other branch of law, has its own philosophy, and occupies an important place in the administration of justice and the concept of bail emerges from the conflict between the police power to restrict liberty of a man who is alleged to have committed a crime, and presumption of innocence in favour of the alleged criminal.1In deciding bail applications an important factor which should certainly be taken into consideration by the Court is the delay in concluding the trial.—Often this takes several years, and if the accused is denied bail but is ultimately acquitted, who will restore so many years of his life spent in custody? —Is Article 21 of the Constitution, which is the most basic of all the fundamental rights in our Constitution, not violated in such a case? —Of course this is not the only factor, but it is certainly one of the important factors in deciding whether to grant bail.2 Personal liberty is a very precious fundamental right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative according to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.3 Personal liberty deprived when bail is refused, is too precious a value of our constitutional system recognised under Art. 21 that the curial power to negate it is a great trust exercisable, not casually, but judicially with lively concern for the cost to the individual and the community.4 When the undertrial prisoners are detained in jail custody to an indefinite period, Article 21 of the Constitution is violated.5 10. Given the above, 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. 11. The investigation indicates that the petitioner is not the main accused, so the petitioner's bail shall not be treated as a precedent for granting bail to the other co- accused with a higher role. 12. Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar 1 Supreme Court of India in Vaman Narain Ghiya v. state of Rajasthan, [E-SCR] ; [2008] 17 SCR 369, Para 16, decided on 12.12.2008. 2Supreme Court of India in State of Kerala v. Raneef, SC 2J [E-SCR]; [2011] 1 SCR 590, Para 4, decided on 03.01.2011. 3 Supreme Court of India in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, SC 2J [E-SCR], Paragraph 127, decided on 02.12.2010. 4 Supreme Court of India in Babu Singh & ors v. State of UP, [E-SCR] P. 777, decided on 31.01.1978. 5 Supreme Court of India in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI , [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 309, Para 26, [E-SCR], decided on 23.11.2011. ANJU RANI 2025.09.24 16:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 3 4 CRM-M-41139-2025 to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for bail. This order shall come into force from the time it is uploaded on this Court's official webpage. 13. Given the 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 or duty Magistrate, with or without sureties, with a maximum bond amount not to exceed INR 10,000. 14. Before accepting the surety, the concerned Court must be satisfied that if the accused fails to appear, the surety is capable of producing the accused. However, instead of surety, the petitioner may provide a fixed deposit of INR 10,000/-, with a clause that the interest shall not be accumulated in FD, either drawn from a State-owned bank or any bank listed on the National Stock Exchange and/or Bombay Stock Exchange, in favour of the “Chief Judicial Magistrate” of the concerned Sessions Division; or a fixed deposit made in the name of the petitioner, with similar terms and with endorsement from the banker stating that the FD shall not be encumbered or redeemed without the permission of the concerned trial Court, or until the surety bond has been discharged. 15. 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) 16. 17. This order is subject to the petitioner’s complying with the following terms. 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 Court. 18. The significant consideration for granting bail is that the Court aims to give the petitioner another chance to course-correct, reform, and reintegrate into the community as an ideal citizen. To ensure that the petitioner also abides by the assurance made on the petitioner’s behalf by not repeating the offence or indulging in any crime, it shall be desirable to impose the following additional condition. 19. ANJU RANI 2025.09.24 16:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 4 This bail is conditional, with the foundational condition being that if the petitioner 5 CRM-M-41139-2025 repeats the offense or commits any non-bailable offense which provides for a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years, the State shall file an application to revoke this bail before the concerned Court having jurisdiction over this FIR, which shall have the authority to cancel this bail, and as per their discretion, they may cancel this bail. 20. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 21. In Amit Rana v. State of Haryana, CRM-18469-2025 [Decided on 05.08.2025), in CRA-D-123-2020], a Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in paragraph 13, holds that “To ensure that every person in judicial custody who has been granted bail or whose sentence has been suspended gets back their liberty without any delay, it is appropriate that whenever the bail order or the orders of suspension of sentence are not immediately sent by the Registry, computer systems, or Public Prosecutor, then in such a situation, to facilitate the immediate restoration of the liberty granted by any Court, the downloaded copies of all such orders, subject to verification, must be accepted by the Court before whom the bail bonds are furnished.” 22. Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any,
Decision
stand disposed of. 24.09.2025 anju rani Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes No. Whether reportable: (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE ANJU RANI 2025.09.24 16:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 5