Multiple pending cases no ground to refuse bail: HC
The pendency of several criminal cases against an accused cannot be the basis to refuse bail to him, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled. The assertion came as it granted bail to Amritsar resident Sarabjit Singh in a cheating and forgery case. He is, otherwise, facing allegations of using luxury vehicles supporting Haryana Chief Secretary’s flag.
In custody for over a year
No doubt, the allegations levelled against the petitioner point towards the seriousness of the offence. However, the petitioner is continuing in custody for over a year... Even, the case is primarily based on the testimonies of the official witnesses and the petitioner is not in a position to influence the witnesses. Further, the offences are triable by the court of Magistrate and there are no chances of early conclusion of the trial. HC Bench
The Bench granted bail after noting that he has been in custody for over a year. The matter was placed before Justice NS Shekhawat after the accused sought regular bail in the case registered on September 22, 2023, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 474 and 120-B of the IPC and the provisions of the Arms Act at the Kharar City police station in Mohali.
As per the FIR, the accused used luxury cars “by putting up flags of Chief Secretary, Haryana, after affixing red light atop the vehicle”. It was further alleged that he used a pilot vehicle, also having a flag atop “pretending himself to be a VIP”. He had private security men comprising “ex-Army men having licensed Arms”. The Bench was also told that he carried forged IDs and used wireless communication equipment in his vehicles to monitor his security. He ran an immigration business and cheated innocent people.
His counsel Vipul Jindal contended false allegations had been levelled and the accused had not cheated the “victim” of Rs 11 crore. The investigation into the matter had allegedly led to the recovery of Rs 54 lakh.
Jindal added even the prosecution case was that money was paid to various accused and the petitioner had only acted as a mediator. He argued that the accused had cooperated fully in the investigation. Opposing the prayer, the state counsel argued that he was facing 21 cases and might abscond.
The Bench asserted: “No doubt, the allegations levelled against the petitioner point towards the seriousness of the offence. However, the petitioner is continuing in custody for over a year as undertrial prisoner. Even, the case is primarily based on the testimonies of the official witnesses and the petitioner is not in a position to influence the witnesses. Further, the offences are triable by the court of Magistrate and there are no chances of early conclusion of the trial.”
Referring to Supreme Court verdicts in the cases of “Prabhakar Tewari versus State of UP” and “Maulana Mohd Amir Rashadi versus State of UP”, Justice Shekhawat asserted it was held that the pendency of several criminal cases against the accused could not be the basis to refuse bail. The court also imposed stringent conditions for his release.
