The High Court affirms that mere involvement in multiple FIRs is not independently sufficient to deny bail; bail must be decided based on the facts and circumstances of the FIR in question. This judgment upholds existing Supreme Court and High Court precedent, serving as binding authority for subordinate courts in Punjab and Haryana, particularly in financial fraud prosecutions.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/10434/2025 of MANOHAR LAL Vs STATE OF PUNJAB |
| CNR | PHHC010282072025 |
| Date of Registration | 20-02-2025 |
| Decision Date | 01-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Bench | Single Judge Bench: MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL |
| Precedent Value | Binding within jurisdiction (Punjab and Haryana) |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing precedent (Supreme Court and other High Courts) |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law – Bail under Section 483 BNSS, 2023; Offences under Sections 420, 120-B, 201 IPC |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | Mere involvement in other criminal cases cannot, on its own, be sufficient grounds to refuse bail if a case for bail is otherwise made out in the specific FIR. The decision to grant bail must be based on facts and circumstances unique to the FIR in question. The Court emphasized reliance on factual matrix and proper judicial exercise without presumption solely from previous or pending FIRs. Authoritative reliance was placed on Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. (2012), Calcutta High Court in Sridhar Das v. State (1998), and Punjab & Haryana High Court precedent. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Bail must be considered on merits of the FIR in question; multiplicity of FIRs cannot be sole reason to deny regular bail; no risk of absconding or tampering evident; current custody and slow progress of trial weighed. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Petitioner, Managing Director of finance company, was accused in FIR No.33/2022 for cheating under Section 420 IPC (and later 120-B, 201 IPC) relating to non-return of investment amounts to complainant. Petitioner in custody since 17.12.2022; only 8/14 witnesses examined, denovo trial ordered after Section 319 CrPC application. Custody certificate showed multiple FIRs but none sufficient to independently deny bail. |
| Citations |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Punjab and Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Supreme Court |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The judgment reaffirms that mere pendency of other FIRs or criminal cases cannot by itself be the ground for denial of regular bail if a case fundamentally exists for bail in the specific FIR.
- Prosecution’s argument of multiple involvements must be substantiated with distinct risks (absconding, tampering, etc.) to justify refusal of bail.
- Specific conditions were imposed on the grant of bail, including mandatory monthly affidavits about any new offences, providing contact details, and safeguarding against trial delays.
- Lawyers should cite this authority when opposing blanket objections based solely on “multiple FIRs” at bail hearings.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court noted that while the State highlighted the petitioner’s involvement in multiple FIRs, such fact alone cannot suffice to deny bail if the facts of the present FIR justify release.
- The court relied centrally on the Supreme Court judgment in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. (2012), which held multiple involvements are not, by themselves, a valid ground to deny bail.
- Further support was drawn from Sridhar Das v. State (Calcutta High Court, 1998), and own High Court precedent (Akhilesh Singh and Balraj), providing continuity in the approach to bail.
- The individual facts were considered: ongoing custody since 17.12.2022; a denovo trial due to addition of new accused under Section 319 CrPC; no evidence of tampering or risk of absconding.
- The High Court further emphasized the bail discretion is to be exercised judiciously based on facts of the FIR, not on generalities or presumptions from other criminal records.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Petitioner, as MD of finance company, was not directly involved in the local branch’s activities relevant to the FIR.
- Cited that only 8 of 14 prosecution witnesses had been examined and a denovo trial was ordered after Section 319 CrPC application, indicating prolonged trial prospects.
- Emphasized long period in custody (since 17.12.2022) without risk to trial or evidence.
- Sought regular bail on these grounds.
Respondent (State)
- Argued the seriousness of the allegations (financial fraud/cheating).
- Opposed bail on grounds of petitioner’s involvement in multiple FIRs.
- Filed a custody certificate showing other involvements.
- Claimed seriousness warrants denial of bail.
Factual Background
The petitioner, who served as Managing Director of a finance company, was implicated in FIR No. 33 dated 13.05.2022 registered under Section 420 IPC (with additional sections 120-B and 201 IPC later added) at PS Chamkaur Sahib, District Rupnagar. The allegations arose from a complainant who claimed that company representatives induced investments with a promise of returns, later closing their office without repayment. During trial, the court allowed the addition of another accused under Section 319 CrPC, requiring denovo trial. The petitioner had been continuously in custody since 17.12.2022 while only a part of the prosecution evidence was completed.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 483 of BNSS, 2023: Power to grant regular bail, applied in context of criminal proceedings post-replacement of CrPC.
- Section 420 IPC: Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.
- Section 120-B IPC: Criminal conspiracy, added during investigation/trial.
- Section 201 IPC: Causing disappearance of evidence of offence.
- Section 319 CrPC: Addition of new accused resulting in denovo trial proceedings.
- The court interpreted that custody arising under the present FIR, rather than general criminal antecedents, is crucial for bail analysis.
Procedural Innovations
- Imposition of detailed bail conditions, notably requiring monthly affidavits affirming no re-offending post-release on bail.
- Direction to deposit passport, share cell number with police, and prohibit change thereof without court permission.
- Stipulation for immediate action for cancellation of bail upon violation of any specified conditions.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment affirms and applies existing Supreme Court and High Court precedent on bail and the weight to be given to multiple FIRs.
Citations
- Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P., 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586
- Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477
- Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana, CRM-M No.38822-2022, P&H HC, decided on 29.11.2021
- Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191