-
by Admin
07 May 2024 2:49 AM
In a significant development, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh, has granted bail to the petitioner, Pankaj Kumar alias Meenu Malhotra, who was facing charges related to economic offenses. The court, while ensuring a balance between individual liberty and the necessity of a fair trial, imposed stringent conditions to address concerns such as influencing the investigation, tampering with evidence, and intimidating witnesses. The decision was rendered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara on 3rd July 2023.
The petitioner had filed a bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), seeking release from custody in connection with an FIR registered on 22nd September 2022, at Vigilance Bureau Range Jalandhar, Bathinda, District Jalandhar. The FIR accused the petitioner of receiving a bribe through conduits for compromising a tender for food procurement and transportation. The charges invoked various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
During the proceedings, the petitioner's counsel, Mr. Bipan Ghai, Sr. Advocate, along with Mr. Nikhil Ghai, Advocate, and Mr. Prabhdeep Singh Bindra, Advocate, sought bail, highlighting the irreparable harm that prolonged pre-trial incarceration could cause to the petitioner and his family. They expressed willingness to comply with any stringent conditions imposed by the court.
The State opposed the bail application, emphasizing the seriousness of the economic offenses and the need to prevent the accused from influencing the ongoing investigation, tampering with evidence, or intimidating witnesses.
After considering the arguments and the completion of material investigation, Justice Anoop Chitkara, referring to relevant Supreme Court judgments, held that the accused was entitled to bail on stringent conditions. The court cited the cases of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, among others, to underscore the importance of balancing the liberty of the accused with the requirements of a fair trial.
In a pragmatic approach, the court suggested that the accused should be given the choice to furnish either surety bonds or alternative options such as fixed deposits, direct electronic money transfer, or creating a lien over their bank account. The court emphasized that this choice should lie with the accused, providing flexibility and options based on individual circumstances.
The court further ordered the petitioner to comply with various conditions, including submitting detailed information about bank accounts, assets, and financial holdings within fifteen days of release. Failure to comply with these conditions could result in the cancellation of bail. The court also highlighted that the petitioner could apply for modifications of bail conditions if they violated fundamental rights or caused difficulties in specific situations.
To ensure authenticity and ease of procedure, the court allowed advocates for the petitioner to download and attest a true copy of the bail order from the official court website. This copy could be used for furnishing bonds, with the attesting officer having the option to verify its authenticity.
The court clarified that its observations in the bail order were not expressions of opinion on the merits of the case, and the trial court should not consider them during the trial proceedings. It further emphasized that the decision did not restrict or limit the rights of the police or the investigating agency to continue their investigation as per the law.
Date of Decision:3rd July 2023
Pankaj Kumar @ Meenu Malhotra VS State of Punjab