Judgment:
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh .....Criminal Misc.
No.M-942 of 2014 (O&M) ....Date of decision:12.2.2014 Kumar Anuj ...Petitioner v.
State of Haryana ...Respondent ...Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Inderjit Singh ....Present: Mr.S.K.Garg, Senior Advocate with Mr.Naveen Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Subhash Godara, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State....Inderjit Singh, J.
The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 439 read with Section 437(6) Cr.P.C.for grant of regular bail pending trial in case FIR No.48 dated 19.3.2013 registered at Police Station Jakhal, District Fatehabad for the offences under Sections 408, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477-A, 201 and 120-B IPC and Sections 65 and 66 of the I.T.Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the orders of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate as well as Additional Sessions Judge dismissing the application filed under Section 437 (6) Cr.P.C.are against law.
He also argued that the petitioner is in custody since 4.5.2013 and the petitioner being poor person has been involved in the present case and all the senior officers have been left free.
On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General, Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.02.18 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr.
Misc.
No.M-942 of 2014 (O&M) [2].Haryana opposed the bail petition and stated that keeping in view the serious allegations against the petitioner, he is not entitled to the benefit of regular bail.
I have gone through the record and have heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana appearing for the respondent-State.
From the record, I find that as per the FIR, allegations against the present petitioner are that when he was working at Mehsana District Milk Producers Union Limited, he committed embezzlement in the bills of milk for the period from 1.2.2012 to 28.2.2013 and had embezzled amount more than `2 Crores.
He embezzled the amount by making payment of more amount than the actual amount of the milk received by preparing forged bills from Excel-sheet with the help of computer in place of actual bills and sending the same to Manesar Office for payment.
Keeping in view the nature and gravity of the offences and the fact that, as stated, only nine witnesses out of 44 have been examined, I find that there is every chance of tampering with the evidence.
Therefore, I do not find any ground to release the petitioner on regular bail.
As regards the conclusion of trial within sixty days in view of the provisions of Section 437 (6) Cr.P.C., the same is reproduced below:- “437.
When bail may be taken in case of non-bailable offence.- (1) to (5) xx xx xx (6) If, in any case triable by a Magistrate, the trial of a person accused of any non-bailable offence is not concluded within a Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.02.18 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr.
Misc.
No.M-942 of 2014 (O&M) [3].period of sixty days from the fiRs.date fixed for taking evidence in the case, such person shall, if he is in custody during the whole of the said period, be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Magistrate, unless for reasons to be recorded in writing, the Magistrate otherwise directs.
(7) xx xx xx xx.”
.
In view of this section, it is clear that the Magistrate can dismiss the application by giving reasons.
The learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate has given the reasons and further the Additional Sessions Judge in the bail order has taken note that out of total 44 witnesses mentioned in the list of witnesses, the prosecution has already examined eight witnesses and the Additional Sessions Judge has also held that when the number of witnesses are more, then the case cannot be concluded within two months of its commencement.
In no way, it can be held that these orders of Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge are without any reasons.
Otherwise also, when the number of witnesses are to be examined in this case, then it is not possible for the Magistrate to conclude the trial within two months from the fiRs.date fixed for prosecution evidence.
The Court is examining the witnesses and already 8/9 witnesses have been examined.
Therefore, finding no merit in the petition, the same is dismissed.
February 12, 2014.
(Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp* Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.02.18 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh