Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1153 (PNJ)

Puneet Goyal v. State Of Haryana

2021-07-05

ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN

body2021
JUDGMENT Arvind Singh Sangwan, J. - This common order shall dispose of above noted three petitions as they are similar in nature and involve the same parties. CRM-17228-2021 in CRM-M-4020-2021 CRM-17225-2021 in CRM-M-13199-2021 CRM-17220-2021 in CRM-M-13152-2021 2. The applications have been filed seeking exemption from filing the certified copy of Annexure A-1 i.e. the death certificate of petitioner No. 1 Puneet Goyal. 3. For the reasons stated therein, the applications are allowed and Annexure A-1 is taken on record. CRM-17230-2021 in CRM-M-4020-2021 CRM-17226-2021 in CRM-M-13199-2021 CRM-17222-2021 in CRM-M-13152-2021 4. Prayer in these applications is for preponing the date of the main cases which are fixed for 01.09.2021. 5. For the reasons stated in the applications, the same are allowed. Let the main cases be preponed and taken up today itself. Main cases 6. Prayer in these petitions, filed under Section 439 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 Cr.P.C., is for dispensing/relaxation of a condition imposed by the trial Court while granting regular bail to the petitioners in FIR No. 343, FIR No. 344 and FIR No. 345, dated 24.04.2018, all registered under Sections 420, 406, 120-B, 204 of the IPC and Section 3 of the Haryana Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 2013 at Police Station Sector 7, District Faridabad, vide orders dated 05.04.2019 regarding constitution of a Monitoring Committee. 7. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No. 1 Puneet Goyal has died on 01.05.2021 while in judicial custody and the proceedings qua him stand abated. 8. Learned counsel further submits that in the present FIRs, the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, vide order dated 05.04.2019, has granted concession of regular bail to the petitioners, however, certain conditions were imposed, which cannot be fulfilled in view of the fact that NCLT, Delhi, on 30.03.2019, has appointed an Interim Resolution Professional (for short 'IRP') and petitioner No.2 is not in a position to manage the affairs of the company in view of the said order. 9. 9. Learned counsel further submits that as per aforesaid order, NCLT, Delhi has issued certain directions to IRP, which are contemplated under Sections 15, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and, therefore, petitioner No. 2 cannot fulfill the said condition imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge that a Monitoring Committee should be constituted for supervising all the affairs of the company as the same is being looked after by IRP as per the order of NCLT, Delhi. 10. Learned counsel further submits that thereafter, petitioners had moved an application before the Additional Sessions Judge for modification of the said order, which was dismissed on the ground that it has no jurisdiction to review its earlier order. 11. Learned counsel further submits that despite the fact that regular bail was granted to petitioners on 05.04.2019, both the petitioners were still in judicial custody and during this period, even petitioner No. 1 Puneet Goyal has died on 01.05.2021. 12. Learned counsel relies upon order dated 17.11.2020 passed in CRM-M-36918-2020, wherein both the petitioners were granted concession of regular bail in another FIR No. 289 considering the fact that petitioners are behind the bars for the last about 02 1/2 years and while granting bail, no such condition was laid down. 13. Learned counsel also relies upon order dated 21.07.2020 passed in CRM-M-5522-2020, wherein both the petitioners were granted regular bail in another FIR No. 359 considering the fact that they are in long custody of more than two years. 14. Learned counsel further relies upon order dated 10.02.2021 passed in CRM-M-43460-2020, vide which both the petitioners were granted regular bail in FIR No. 690. The operative part of this order reads as under: "Whether in the present matter a case under Sections 420, 406, 120-B IPC and Section 3 of Haryana Protection of Interest of Depositors in FE Act, 2013 is made out against the petitioners would be debated during the course of trial. The operative part of this order reads as under: "Whether in the present matter a case under Sections 420, 406, 120-B IPC and Section 3 of Haryana Protection of Interest of Depositors in FE Act, 2013 is made out against the petitioners would be debated during the course of trial. However, the petitioners have been in custody in this and other similar cases for the last over 21/2 years; report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has already been filed and therefore the petitioners are not in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence/ witnesses; their Passports already stand deposited with the Investigating Officer; through orders dated 21.07.2020 and 17.07.2020 passed in CRM-M-5522- 2020- Amit Goyal and another and CRM-M-36918-2020 Puneet Goel and another, after considering similar objections as raised by the State in this case, this Court has granted regular bail to the petitioners; out of 20 similar cases against the petitioners they have already been granted bail in 18 of them and the petitioners' trial in which 72 prosecution witnesses are still to be examined is likely to take a long time to conclude especially in the present circumstances when the world is facing the COVID-19 pandemic. In view of the above, the present case is considered to be a fit one in which the petitioners be directed to be released on regular bail. Resultantly, subject to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Faridabad the petitioners are directed to be released on bail." 15. A perusal of the aforesaid order reflects that while granting bail to the petitioners, it was noticed that both the petitioners are involved in number of other cases and considering their long custody, they were granted bail. 16. Learned counsel further submits that while disposing of aforesaid petitions, no such condition has been imposed by this Court for appointment of any Monitoring Committee. 17. Learned State counsel could not dispute the factual position that petitioners were granted regular bail by the Additional Sessions Judge and as on date, petitioner No.1 Puneet Goyal has died, whereas petitioner No. 2 Amit Goyal is in judicial custody for the last more than three years. 18. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present petitions are allowed and the condition(s), imposed in the impugned order(s) dated 05.04.2019 that a Monitoring Committee be constituted, is hereby waived off. 19. 18. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present petitions are allowed and the condition(s), imposed in the impugned order(s) dated 05.04.2019 that a Monitoring Committee be constituted, is hereby waived off. 19. Accordingly, petitioner No. 2 Amit Goyal is directed to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 1 Lakh each with two sureties of like amount subject to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate concerned. He will also surrender his passport, if already not surrendered, before the trial Court and will not leave India without prior permission of the Court. 20. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other connected cases.