0

It would be against Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. read with Section 36A (4) of the NDPS Ac for the petitioners to be held any longer. – Haryana high court

Blog ,

TITLE: Rajpal  v State of Haryana

Decided On-:22.5.2023

CRR-1850-2022 (O&M)

CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Mr. Jasjith Singh Bedi

INTRODUCTION-   The current revision petition was filed in opposition to the Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, order dated August 31, 2022, which denied the applicant’s request for default regular bail.Registered under Sections 20, 25 of the NDPS, 1985, petitioner under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C.

FACTS OF THE CASE-

The case’s brief facts state that while the police party was on patrol, a tip was received that Mani Ram son of Rajender, Rajpal @ Billu (petitioner) son of Sube Singh, and Vishal son of Hoshiar Singh were behind the wheel of a black Tata Harrier car through the village while carrying a large amount of charas. If the road from Panchi Jattan to Rajpur was barricaded, the three accused could be found and arrested along with the car. A report was written and sent to the Police Station Ganaur in this regard based on the information. After some time, the police team noticed the suspicious car leaving Panchi Jattan’s side as they were doing vehicle checks. It came to an end. Two little boys got out of the car. One young child was seated in the driver’s seat, and another fled the area. The driver was identified as Rajpal @ Billu (petitioner) son of Sube Singh by the arrested youths as Rajender’s son Mani Ram. Vishal was the young man who fled. The recovery of 1 kg 800 gms of charas from the car’s dash board was then accomplished.

COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION

The petitioner’s learned attorney claims that since the application under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. for the grant of default bail had only been denied because the deadline for presenting a challan had been extended by 90 days, the petitioner was now entitled to the grant of default bail because the said order extending the deadline for presenting a challan by 90 days had been overturned by this Court in CRR1907-2022, decided on 16.05.2023.

The learned State attorney does not contest the fact that the petitioner was qualified for the award of bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. because the order granting the delay for presenting the challan has been reversed.

The hon’ble court has heard both arguments submitted by the parties with their particular reliance on various judgments, hence has made a conclusion stating According to Section 36A (4) of the NDPS Act, an accused person has an unassailable right to be granted bail since the investigating agency failed to provide the report required by Section 173 Cr.P.C. within the allotted time. In the present instance, the investigating agency filed a request for an extension in order to get more time for presenting the report required by Section 173 Cr.P.C. in the absence of the FSL report. An order dated August 2, 2012, granted a 90-day extension. However, the abovementioned ruling was revoked by this Court in an order dated May 16, 2023 that was issued in CRR-1907-2022.

Therefore, the continued detention of the petitioners would be in violation of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. read with Section 36A (4) of the NDPS Act once this Court has ruled that the grant of an extension of 90 days in the presentation of the challan itself is unlawful.

Bail granted

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by-  Steffi Desousa

Click here to view judgement

 

 

0

Judgment on the case’s merits; instead, the trial court should decide the case based on the evidence -Observed by the Punjab High court

blog

TITLE: Vikas  v State of Haryana

Decided On-: June 16, 2023

CRM-M-30321-2023 (O&M)

CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Mr. Vinod S. Bhardwaj  

INTRODUCTION-   According to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the present petition has been submitted for the issuance of regular bail in connection with charges under the Indian Penal Code. [409, 418, 420, 466, 467, 468, 471, 477-A, 120-B]

FACTS OF THE CASE-

On the basis of information/a report obtained from the Chief Secretary’s office in Haryana and the Director General of Police’s office in the Anti-Corruption Bureau in Haryana, a case was opened. It was alleged that, in accordance with the rules and regulations of the revenue department, different stamp duties had been set forth for the registration of sale deeds for industrial, commercial, and residential plots. Sale deeds are being registered online in accordance with the State Government’s new policy so that the accurate prices of the properties and the stamp duty thereon can be determined. In Rajendra Park, Gurugram, Ravinder Singh, Director of M/s Nippon Steering & Suspension Pvt. Ltd., owned an industrial plot measuring 2 Bigha 19 Biswa 16 Biswansi. This plot was registered under property ID number 106C100U52 with the Municipal Corporation of Gurugram, and according to the Collector Rate, it was valued at Rs. 40,03,39,800/- under the industrial plot category, with a stamp duty. The industrial plot category cost Rs. 40,03,39,800 and the stamp duty was Rs. 2,80,23,786. Said Harish Kumar, Director of M/s Janghu Real Estate Private Ltd, Gurugram, purchased the aforementioned land measuring 2 Bigha 19 Biswa 16 Biswansi from said Ravinder Singh, Director, M/s Nippon Steering & Suspension Pvt. Ltd. for a sale consideration of Rs. 8 crores and paid stamp duty of Rs. 56 lacs showing the land under category of agricultural land via registered sale deed no. 9235 dated

The land was shown to Gair Mumkin according to the revenue records. such that. In a criminal conspiracy, Ravinder Singh, Harish Kumar, and Tehsildar Darpan Singh Kamboj collectively cost the State Rs. 2,24,23,786 in lost stamp duty. In addition, it is claimed that authorization to register the sale deed manually rather than online was given via letter from the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Gurugram, dated 7.01.2022. When plots were cut into the disputed land after it had been falsely classified as “mixed use” and shown to have “approved” status, the Municipal Corporation of Gurugram was accused of conspiring with these individuals and stealing a significant amount of money.

COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION

The petitioner’s proficient attorney claims that the petitioner had no involvement in the crime’s commission. According to the case presented by the investigating agency, the co-accused Chiranji Lal is alleged to have contacted Pankaj, who then contacted Shiv Mehra, who then contacted the petitioner. Samar Kapoor, an employee of the Municipal Corporation, is alleged to have changed the property’s description in the property I.D. database in exchange for payment. He contends that the petitioner was held in custody for a longer period of time than those who received regular bail. Further, he contends that the petitioner, Samar Kapoor, who made the necessary change, is at best just a conduit between the beneficiaries. The state’s attorney objected to the petitioner’s request and claims that the petitioner was the key player in changing the property I.D. database, which cost the state exchequer more than Rs. 2.24 crores. Additionally, it is undeniable that the Municipal Corporation employee who made the change to the property I.D. database has already been given an interim bail

The court held it is appropriate to grant the present petition in light of the fact that other suspects in a comparable situation have already been granted the concession of bail, the suspect accused of making the final changes to the property I.D. database is already free on interim bail, the investigation in the case is already complete, and there is nothing more to be recouped from the petitioner.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by-  Steffi Desousa

Click here to view judgement

 

0

The appellant prays in front of the court, seeking that the guilty sentence be reduced to time served under section 392 & 411 IPC- granted by Haryana High court

Blog , ,

TITLE: Lovepreet v UT Chandigarh

Decided On-: May 24, 2023

CRA-S-47 of 2021 (O&M)

CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Mr. Jaishree Thakur

INTRODUCTION-   According to Section 392 of the IPC, the defendant has been found guilty and given a sentence of seven years of hard labour and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-; however, if the fine is not paid, the defendant will also be subjected to six months of rigorous imprisonment and a three-year sentence under Section 411 of the IPC.

FACTS OF THE CASE-

The complainant, Sanjeev Kumar, gave a recorded statement to the police stating that he was employed at Dhaba, Delhi Paranthe Wali Gali, Sector 22A, Chandigarh.

He was riding his motorbike with the registration number CH76(T)6691 home from work at around 2:00 a.m. He was riding his motorbike when a white colour car pulled up behind him and stopped in front of it in Chandigarh’s sector 22/23. He was asked to turn over anything he was holding when two boys exited the aforementioned car. While the other boy pulled out a gun-like object and struck him in the head, the first boy slapped him.

They violently took Rs. 10,000 from his pocket and a gold chain from his neck while threatening to kill him if he made any noise. The boys then escaped in the same vehicle with the HR-9671 registration number. The present FIR No. 398, dated December 26, 2017, was filed at Police Station 17 in Chandigarh based on the aforementioned statement and was filed under IPC Sections 397, 34, and 411 as well as Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act. charge-sheeted under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act as well as Sections 397 and 392 of the IPC read with Sections 34 and 411. After listening to the parties’ knowledgeable solicitors and evaluating the evidence,

As per the petitioner’s conviction and punishment on the record,

COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION

The appellant’s knowledgeable attorney has argued that while he does not wish to contest the merits of the appellant’s conviction, he would be content if the appellant’s sentence were to be viewed favorably. Given these facts, the sentence meted out to the appellant may be reduced to the one he has already served.On the other hand, learned State counsel argued against the arguments made by learned counsel for the appellant and added a custody certificate to the record, arguing that the sentence given to the appellant was proportionate to the crime he committed. The appellant is not deserving of any indulgence.The conviction of the appellant is upheld in light of the distinctive facts and circumstances of the current case as noted above, in addition to the preceding arguments.

The sentence will be reduced to reflect the time the appellant has already served, though. The same would, however, be contingent on the petitioner depositing costs in the amount of Rs. 10,000 with the Punjab and Haryana High Court Lawyers’ Welfare Fund within a month of today. It is made clear that the appeal will be deemed to have been dismissed if the aforementioned sum of Rs. 10,000 is not deposited within the allotted time.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by–  Steffi Desousa

Click here to view judgement

0

The petition is allowed, and bail granted by Punjab high court accused under Sections 7 and 14 of the Foreigners Act of 1946 and Sections

blog ,

TITLE: Mohammad Rahim Ashori v State of Haryana

Decided On-: 04.07.2023

CRM-M-22276-2023

CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Mr. Manoj Bajaj

INTRODUCTION- Through this petition under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioners seek regular bail while the case is pending in FIR No. 540 from August 12, 2021, which was filed in accordance with Sections 7 and 14 of the Foreigners Act of 1946 and Sections 12 (1A) of the Passports Act of 1967.

FACTS OF THE CASE-

Short facts of the prosecution case are that on 12.08.2021, SI Suresh Kumar, Ct. Parveen Kumar, Ct. Mahipal, and Ct. Manish were present in the area of Bakhtawar Chowk in Sector 39, Gurugram, for the purpose of crime checking and patrolling duty.He learned secretly that Manish, the proprietor of the Sawaram Cafe, is living with some foreigners, including Mohammad Rahim Ashori, son of Adena Mohammad, of Takhar, Chyap, in Kabul, Afghanistan; Hameedullah Salari, son of Nakib; and Abdul Basir, son of Abdul Jalil of village Aftal, city Badakhshan Tehrakulam, Afghanistan; in the home of Prem Lata, wife A raiding party was organised on the basis of confidential information, and a raid was carried out at the Swaram Cafe to find out more about the aforementioned individuals.Mohammad, a resident of Takhar, Chyap, Kabul, Afghanistan, and accused applicant Hameedullah Salari were discovered together, and

The request was made for their passports and visas. Further investigation revealed that the accused applicant, Hameedullah Salari, was residing there without a passport or visa that was currently valid. It served as the foundation for registering the current case.

COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION

Expert legal representation for the petitioners has argued that although they have lived in India for a considerable amount of time, the petitioners are actually citizens of Afghanistan and have only been accused of overstaying their welcome because their passports and visas have run out. The petitioners, who have been in custody for about two years and eleven months, can receive a sentence of up to five years for the alleged crimes, according to the learned counsel. He asserts that although charges were filed on May 29, 2023, only two of the prosecution’s nine witnesses have been questioned thus far, and the trial will take a significant amount of time to complete. Prays for bail

On the other hand, learned State attorney with ASI’s assistance in his response, Sanjay Kumar cites an affidavit from Abhimanyu Lohan, HPS, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Sadar Gurugram, who states that the petitioners’ respective visas expired on July 7, 2016, February 5, and October 10, 2018, respectively, and that they were discovered to be residing in India without a valid passport and visa.The petitioners are being tried for overstaying in India after their passport and visa had expired, according to the court, which finds that there is no evidence that they were engaging in any illegal activity or committing a crime.

Petition allowed, bail granted.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by–  Steffi Desousa

Click here to view judgement

0

Haryana High Court: If the appellant behaves well, will be released on probation.

blog ,

TITLE: Gopal v State of  Haryana

Decided On-: March 28, 2023

CRA-S-870-SB-2004 (O&M)

CORAM: Hon’ble Justice N.S Shekhawat

INTRODUCTION –  Due to violating the terms of the Haryana Food Article (Licencing and Price Control) Order, 1985, the present appellant was found guilty of the offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and given a two-year sentence of rigorous imprisonment.

FACTS OF THE CASE-

The prosecution in the present case was launched on the basis of a written complaint filed by the Assistant Food and Supply Officer, Palwal against Firm M/S Balaji Enterprises, Commission Agent Palwal, and the present appellant/accused was the proprietor of the said firm. According to the allegations, the firm M/S Balaji Enterprises’ premises were inspected by P.D. Sharma, AFSO, and Dharam Chand, Inspector, Food and Supplies Department. According to information provided by the Haryana government, M/S Balaji Enterprises received 3578 quintals and 80 kilogrammes of wheat from Food Corporation of India, Punjab, for distribution, as evidenced by the firm’s stock register.

Aside from that, on 12.01.1997 and 13.01.1997, this firm purchased 319 quintals and 66 kilogrammes of wheat from M/S Jindal Trading Company, Sirsa. From 12.01.1997 to 13.02.1997, this firm received 4028 quintals and 46 kilogrammes of wheat in this manner. The firm should have distributed the wheat in accordance with government rules as well as the Haryana Food Articles (Licencing and Price Control) Order, 1985.

However, the firm issued fake cash memos and even failed to include the correct address of the customers on the cash memos, which is a violation of Clause 9 of the licence granted to the said firm. The aforementioned firm misappropriated the wheat by issuing fake bills and preparing bogus cash memos in which the addresses of the consumers were not mentioned.

The accused had thus broken the terms of the 1985 Haryana Food Articles (Licencing and Price Control) Order, which was punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. After the police looked into the situation, a challan was eventually filed against the accused in the appropriate court. According to an order from the learned Special Judge in Faridabad dated August 12, 1998, the appellant/accused had violated the terms of the Haryana Food Articles (Licencing and Price Control Order, 1985), which is punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act of 1955. He was served with the notice of accusation, to which he pleaded not guilty and asserted his right to a trial by jury.

COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION

Ten witnesses were questioned by the prosecution in support of the charge.Upon completion of the investigation in the current case, PW1 Amir Singh, SI/SHO, prepared the report in accordance with Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

However, the accused company, whose owner is the appellant, created phoney cash memos and displayed a false distribution of wheat. Additionally, he provided details about the thorough investigation he conducted and the fabricated bills that the current accused had created.He added, during his cross-examination, that no one else in their village had the name Nathan son of Hira Lal. Sanwal Singh Inspector, PW10, who had conducted the investigation, taken possession of the entire file, and recorded the statements of every witness, was questioned by the prosecution. Regarding the police investigation, he gave the information that was true.The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code after the prosecution’s evidence was concluded, and he pleaded his false implication.  Leaning counsel for the appellant made the following argument: The court made a serious mistake by relying on the testimony of PW10 Inspector Sanwal Singh, who was unable to recover the accused’s stock register and bill books. Additionally, because section 100 of the Cr. P.C. was not followed and no independent witness was added at the time the record was recovered in the current case, the appellant was eligible for an acquittal by this Court. Further, the appellant’s learned counsel pointed out a few minor discrepancies in the testimony of various prosecution witnesses.

I believe that the ends of justice will be served after considering all the relevant facts and circumstances of the current case. If the appellant is ordered to be released on probation instead of receiving a substantive sentence, the conditions will have been adequately met. As a result, the appellant’s conviction for the charge brought against him is upheld, and it is ordered that the appellant be released on probation for good behaviour after posting a personal bond for Rs. 20,000 with a surety for the same sum, promising to maintain peace and good behaviour for a year and to pay his or her fines as and when required to do so during that year.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by–  Steffi Desousa

Click here to view judgement (2)

1 2