Allowed

Sumit Aggarwal v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Dec 2023CRM-M/62034/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted bail to Sumit Aggarwal, an accountant accused of corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act, citing judicial precedents. The Court imposed stringent conditions, including a ban on multiple prepaid SIMs restricted to the Aadhaar-linked number, and required furnishing a personal bond.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on terms including a personal bond, restriction to one prepaid SIM, and specific financial security mechanisms.

Sumit Aggarwal Vs State of Haryana — Corruption | Punjab & Haryana HC (2023)

¶1

CRM-M-62034-2023 2023:PHHC: 162815

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

¶3

AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-M-62034-2023 (O&M) Date of order: 19.12.2023

¶5

Sumit Aggarwal

¶6

... Petitioner(s)

¶7

Versus State of Haryana

¶8

…Respondent (s)

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

¶10

Present:Mr. Kunal Dawar, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

¶11

Mr. Rajat Gautam, Addl.A.G., Haryana.

¶12

¶13

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

¶14

FIR No.	Dated	Police Station	Sections
23	26.5.2023	Anti Corruption Bureau, Gurugram	409, 420, 120B IPC and Sections 7, 13(1)(a), 13(1)(b), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. (Challan presented u/s 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC & Sections 7, 8, 13(1)(a), 13(1)(b) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988)

¶15

The petitioner, incarcerated upon his arrest in the FIR captioned above, has come

¶16

up before this Court under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeking bail.

¶17

In paragraph 15 of the bail petition, the accused declares his criminal antecedents as follows:-

¶18

FIR No.	Dated	Police Station	Sections
21	13.5.2023	Anti Corruption	409, 420, 120B IPC and Sections 7,
22	2652023	Bureau,	13(1)(a), 13(1)(b), 13(2) of the
	..	Gurugram	Prevention of Corruption Act,1988.

¶19

Petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and is also

¶20

ASHWANI KUMARvoluntarily agreeable to the condition that till the conclusion of the trial before the trial 2023.12.19 14:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶21

¶22

CRM-M-62034-2023 2023:PHHC: 162815

¶23

court, the petitioner shall keep only one mobile number, which is mentioned in AADHAR card, and within fifteen days of release from prison undertakes to disconnect all other mobile numbers. The petitioner contends that the further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family.

¶24

The state's counsel opposes the bail and states that considering the allegations, the petitioner's custodial interrogation is necessary. The State’s counsel further contends that given the criminal past, the accused is not entitled to any bail.

¶25

In Maulana Mohd Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P., (2012) 3 SCC 382, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,

¶26

[10] It is not in dispute and highlighted that the second respondent is a sitting Member of Parliament facing several criminal cases. It is also not in dispute that most of the cases ended in acquittal for want of proper witnesses or pending trial. As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc.

¶27

While considering each bail petition of the accused with a criminal history, it throws an onerous responsibility upon the Courts to act judiciously with reasonableness because arbitrariness is the antithesis of law. The criminal history must be of cases where the accused was convicted, including the suspended sentences and all pending First Information Reports, wherein the bail petitioner stands arraigned as an accused. In reckoning the number of cases as criminal history, the prosecutions resulting in acquittal or discharge, or when Courts quashed the FIR; the prosecution stands withdrawn, or prosecution filed a closure report; cannot be included. Although crime is to be despised and not the criminal, yet for a recidivist, the contours of a playing field are marshy, and graver the criminal history, slushier the puddles.

¶28

Facts of the case are extracted from the reply dated 18.12.2023 filed by the State

¶29

by way of affidavit of concerned DySP, which read as under:-

¶30

“2. That the present case was registered during investigation of case bearing FIR No. 21 dated 13.05.2023, at Anti Corruption Bureau, Gurugram, in which case also the petitioner Sumit Aggarwal is one of the named accused.

¶31

That during the investigation of the present case FIR No.23 dated 26.05.2023 it is revealed that at the time of appointment of petitioner as accountant at ICDP Integrated Cooperative Development Project), Rewari, he transferred an amount of Rs. 45,50,000/- from the account No.000435001100025 of ICDP (Integrated Cooperative Development Project), Rewari, through RTGS on 10.10.2019 and the RTGS form was signed by petitioner Sumit Aggarwal, Accountant, ICDP(integrated

¶32

ASHWANI KUMAR 2023.12.19 14:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶33

¶34

CRM-M-62034-2023 2023:PHHC: 162815

¶35

Cooperative Development Project) and accused Yogender Aggarwal, the than General Manager, ICDP(Integrated Cooperative Development Project) Rewari (copy of RTGS form is annexed as Annexure R1). The said amount has been credited in account No. 00000036204377038 IFSC Code SBIN0010374 SBI Bank, Branch Sector 20 Panchkula which is in the name of SRK Apartments, Zirakpur.

¶36

That, it further revealed that from said amount of Rs. 45,50,000/-, flat No. 1605, Block-F, SRK Apartment, Zirakpur was purchased by co accused Nitin Sharma and Rachna Aggarwal (wife of the petitioner) and the sale deed of the said flat No. 1605, Block-F, SRK Apartment, Zirakpur was executed on 03.07.2020 in favour of CO accused Nitin Sharma and Rachna Aggarwal (wife of Petitioner). and allotment letter and possession letter bears their signature.

¶37

That it had also come in investigation that Petitioner Sumi Aggarwal was an Accountant, ICDP(Integrated Cooperative Development Project), and CO accused Yogender Aggarwal remained posted as General Manager, and CO accused Nitin Sharma remained posted as Development Officer(on contract basis) in ICDP(integrated Cooperative Development Project) Rewari.

¶38

That the above-said accused persons namely Petitioner Sumit Aggarwal Accountant, Rachna Aggarwal (wife of petitioner), Yogender Aggarwal General Manager, Nitin Sharma in collusion with each other had committed cheating, fraud, wrongful gain to themselves and wrongful loss to the department.

¶39

That it had also come in the investigation that on 02.01.2019 Petitioner Sumit Aggarwal in connivance with co accused Yogender Aggarwal had withdrawn Rs.30,00,000/- from the account No. 000435001100025 of ICDP Rewari, which were deposited in the personal account No.000000010575764615 SBI Narnaul of Petitioner and the amount was credited in the said account on 03.01.2019 and made a false entry on the name of Fixed Deposit in the Cash Book of Account. Out of that Rs. 30,00,000/- petitioner transferred Rs. 25,00,000/- in the account of his wife Rachana Aggarwal in her account NO. 00000035118667586, SBI Narnaul from his(Petitioner) account No.000000010575764615. In this regard FIR No. 22 dated 26.05.2023 PS ACB Gurugram was registered.

¶40

That during the investigation Petitioner Sumit Aggarwal, Yogender Aggarwal and Nitin Sharma were joined into the investigation and arrested and all are in judicial custody. During interrogation petitioner Sumit Aggarwal suffered disclosure statement and admitted his involvement in the present case disclosed that from said amount of Rs. 45,50,000/-, flat no. 1605, Block-F, SRK Apartment, Zirakpur purchased by Nitin Sharma and Rachna Aggarwal (wife of Petitioner) and the sale deed on the said flat no. 1605, Block-F, SRK Apartment, Zirakpur was executed on 03.07.2020 in favour of Nitin Sharma and Rachna Aggarwal (Petitioner). Allotment letter and possession letter bears signature of Rachna Aggarwal. Disclosure Statement of Petitioner Sumit Aggarwal is annexed as Annexure R-2.”

¶41

As per paragraph 5 of the petition, the petitioner is in custody since 28.7.2023. Given the penal provisions invoked viz-a-viz pre-trial custody, coupled with the prima facie analysis of the nature of allegations, and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability for further pre-trial incarceration at this stage, subject to the compliance of terms and conditions mentioned in this order.

¶42

ASHWANI KUMAR 2023.12.19 14:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶43

¶44

CRM-M-62034-2023 2023:PHHC: 162815

¶45

In Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation , (2012) 1 SCC 40, Supreme Court holds,

¶46

[28] We are conscious of the fact that the accused are charged with economic offences of huge magnitude. We are also conscious of the fact that the offences alleged, if proved, may jeopardize the economy of the country. At the same time, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the investigating agency has already completed investigation and the charge sheet is already filed before the Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi. Therefore, their presence in the custody may not be necessary for further investigation. We are of the view that the appellants are entitled to the grant of bail pending trial on stringent conditions in order to ally the apprehension expressed by CBI.

¶47

The possibility of the accused influencing the investigation, tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, and the likelihood of fleeing justice, can be taken care of by imposing elaborative and stringent conditions. In Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi ), 2020:INSC:106 [Para 92] , (2020) 5 SCC 1, Para 92, the Constitutional Bench held that unusually, subject to the evidence produced, the Courts can impose restrictive conditions.

¶48

Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for bail, subject to the following terms and conditions, which shall be over and above and irrespective of the contents of the form of bail bonds in chapter XXXIII of CrPC, 1973.

¶49

In Madhu Tanwar v. State of Punjab , 2023:PHHC:077618 [Para 10, 21] , CRM-

¶50

M-27097-2023, decided on 29-05-2023, this court observed,

¶51

[10] The exponential growth in technology and artificial intelligence has transformed identification techniques remarkably. Voice, gait, and facial recognition are incredibly sophisticated and pervasive. Impersonation, as we know it traditionally, has virtually become impossible. Thus, the remedy lies that whenever a judge or an officer believes that the accused might be a flight risk or has a history of fleeing from justice, then in such cases, appropriate conditions can be inserted that all the expenditure that shall be incurred to trace them, shall be recovered from such person, and the State shall have a lien over their assets to make good the loss.

¶52

[21] In this era when the knowledge revolution has just begun, to keep pace with exponential and unimaginable changes the technology has brought to human lives, it is only fitting that the dependence of the accused on surety is minimized by giving alternative options. Furthermore, there should be no insistence

¶53

ASHWANI KUMAR 2023.12.19 14:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶54

¶55

CRM-M-62034-2023 2023:PHHC: 162815

¶56

to provide permanent addresses when people either do not have permanent abodes or intend to re-locate.

¶57

Given above, provided the petitioner is not required in any other case, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the FIR captioned above, in the following terms :

¶58

(a). Petitioner to furnish personal bond of Rs. Ten thousand (INR 10,000/); AND

¶59

(b) To give one surety of Rs. Twenty-five thousand (INR 25,000/-), to the satisfaction of the concerned court, and in case of non-availability, to any nearest Illaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accepting the surety, the concerned court must satisfy that if the accused fails to appear in court, then such surety can produce the accused before the court.

¶60

¶61

(b). Petitioner to hand over to the concerned court a fixed deposit for Rs. Ten thousand only (INR 10,000/-), with the clause of automatic renewal of the principal and the interest reverting to the linked account, made in favor of the ‘Chief Judicial Magistrate’ of the concerned district, or blocking the aforesaid amount in favour of the concerned ‘Chief Judicial Magistrate’. Said fixed deposit or blocking funds can be from any of the banks where the stake of the State is more than 50% or from any of the well-established and stable private sector banks. In case the bankers are not willing to make a Fixed Deposit in such eventuality it shall be permissible for the petitioner to prepare an account payee demand draft favouring concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate for the similar amount.

¶62

(c). Such court shall have a lien over the funds until the case's closure or discharged by substitution, or up to the expiry of the period mentioned under S. 437-A CrPC, 1973, and at that stage, subject to the proceedings under S. 446 CrPC, the entire amount of fixed deposit, less taxes if any, shall be endorsed/returned to the depositor.

¶63

(d). The petitioner is to also execute a bond for attendance in the concerned Court(s) as and when asked to do so. The presentation of the personal bond shall be deemed acceptance of the declarations made in the bail petition and all other stipulations, terms, and conditions of section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and of this bail order.

¶64

ASHWANI KUMAR 2023.12.19 14:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶65

¶66

CRM-M-62034-2023 2023:PHHC: 162815

¶67

(e). While furnishing personal bond, the petitioner shall mention the following personal identification details:

¶68

1. AADHAR number
2. Passport number, (If available), when the court
attesting the bonds, thinks appropriate or considers the accused as a flight risk.
3. Mobile number (If available)
4. E-Mail id (If available)

¶69

The petitioner shall not influence, browbeat, pressurize, make any inducement, threat, or promise, directly or indirectly, to the witnesses, the Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and the circumstances of the case, to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police, or the Court, or to tamper with the evidence.

¶70

Petitioner to comply with their undertaking made in the bail petition, made before this court through counsel as reflected at the beginning of this order. If the petitioner fails to comply with any of such undertakings, then on this ground alone, the bail might be canceled, and the victim/complainant may file any such application for the cancellation of bail, and the State shall file the said application.

¶71

The petitioner is directed not to keep more than one prepaid SIM, i.e., one prepaid mobile phone number, till the conclusion of the trial; however, this restriction is only on prepaid SIMs [mobile numbers] and not on post-paid connections or landline numbers. The petitioner must comply with this condition within fifteen days of release from prison. The concerned DySP shall also direct all the telecom service providers to deactivate all prepaid SIM cards and prepaid mobile numbers issued to the petitioner, except the one that is mentioned as the primary number/ default number linked with the AADHAAR card and further that till the no objection from the concerned SHO, the mobile service providers shall not issue second pre-paid SIM/ mobile number in the petitioner’s name. Since, as on date, in India, there are only four prominent mobile service providers, namely BSNL, Airtel, Vodafone-Idea, and Reliance Jio, any other telecom service provider are directed to comply with the directions of the concerned Superintendent of Police/Commissioner of Police, issued in this regard and disable all prepaid mobile phone numbers issued in the name of the petitioner, except the main number/default number linked with AADHAR, by taking such information from the petitioner’s AADHAR details or any other source, for which they shall be legally entitled

¶72

ASHWANI KUMAR 2023.12.19 14:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶73

¶74

CRM-M-62034-2023 2023:PHHC: 162815

¶75

by this order. This condition shall continue till the completion of the trial or closure of the case, whichever is earlier. In Vernon v. The State of Maharashtra , 2023 INSC 655 , [para 45], while granting bail under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 2002, Supreme Court had directed imposition of the similar condition, which reads as follows, “(d) Both the appellants shall use only one Mobile Phone each, during the time they remain on bail and shall inform the Investigating Officer of the NIA, their respective mobile numbers.”

¶76

During the trial's pendency, if the petitioner repeats or commits any offence where the sentence prescribed is more than seven years or violates any condition as stipulated in this order, it shall always be permissible to the respondent to apply for cancellation of this bail. It shall further be open for any investigating agency to bring it to the notice of the Court seized of the subsequent application that the accused was earlier cautioned not to indulge in criminal activities. Otherwise, the bail bonds shall remain in force throughout the trial and after that in Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C., if not canceled due to non-appearance or breach of conditions.

¶77

The conditions mentioned above imposed by this Court are to endeavour that the accused tries to reform, does not repeat the offence and to provide a sense of security to the victim. In Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022: INSC:735 [Para 28] , Writ Petition (Criminal) No 279 of 2022, Para 29, decided on July 20, 2022, A ThreeJudge bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court holds that “The bail conditions imposed by the Court must not only have a nexus to the purpose that they seek to serve but must also be proportional to the purpose of imposing them. The courts while imposing bail conditions must balance the liberty of the accused and the necessity of a fair trial. While doing so, conditions that would result in the deprivation of rights and liberties must be eschewed.”

¶78

Any Advocate for the petitioner and the Officer in whose presence the petitioner puts signatures on personal bonds shall explain all conditions of this bail order in any language that the petitioner understands.

¶79

If the petitioner finds bail condition(s) as violating fundamental, human, or other rights, or causing difficulty due to any situation, then for modification of such term(s), the petitioner may file a reasoned application before this Court, and after taking cognizance, even to the Court taking cognizance or the trial Court, as the case may be, and such Court shall also be competent to modify or delete any condition.

¶80

Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the

¶81

ASHWANI KUMAR 2023.12.19 14:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶82

¶83

CRM-M-62034-2023 2023:PHHC: 162815

¶84

merits of the case nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

¶85

In return for the protection from incarceration, the Court believes that the accused shall also reciprocate through desirable behavior.

¶86

There would be no need for a certified copy of this order for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Petitioner can download this order along with case status from the official web page of this Court and attest it to be a true copy. In case the attesting officer wants to verify the authenticity, such an officer can also verify its authenticity and may download and use the downloaded copy for attesting bonds.

¶87

Petition allowed in aforesaid terms . All pending applications, if any, stand disposed.

¶88

	(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE
December 19, 2023
AK
Whether speaking/reasoned	: Yes
Whether reportable	: Yes

¶89

ASHWANI KUMAR 2023.12.19 14:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶90

Sumit Aggarwal v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumit Aggarwal v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suba Singh Vs State of Punjab

Hardeep Singh Vs State of Punjab

Prince Sharma Vs State of Punjab

Surinder Pal Singh@Pehalwan Vs State of Punjab

Vipan Bhandari Vs State of Punjab

Prem Sagar Sharma Vs State of Punjab