Multiple pending cases are not grounds for denial of bail: HC

Pending multiple criminal cases against an accused cannot be a ground for denying him bail, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled. This statement came in connection with the release on bail of Amritsar resident Sarabjit Singh in a case of fraud and forgery. Otherwise, he faces charges of using luxury cars in support of the Haryana Chief Secretary’s flag.

In custody for over a year

Undoubtedly, the charges brought against the applicant indicate the seriousness of the crime. However, the applicant has been in custody for more than a year… Even the case is mainly based on the testimony of official witnesses and the applicant has no opportunity to influence the witnesses. In addition, the offenses are subject to trial in the Magistrates’ Court and there is no chance of the trial ending early. HC Bench

The court released him on bail, noting that he had been in custody for more than a year. The case was transferred to Judge N.S. Shekhawat after the accused sought bail in a case registered on September 22, 2023, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 474 and 120-B of the IPC and provisions of the Arms Code. Act at Kharar City Police Station in Mohali.

According to the FIR, the accused used luxury cars by “hoisting flags of the Haryana Chief Secretary after installing a red light on the roof of the car.” It was further alleged that he used a piloted vehicle, which also had a flag on it, “pretending to be a VIP.” He had private security personnel, including “former army personnel with a weapons license.” The judge was also told he carried false identification and used wireless communications equipment in his cars to monitor his safety. He ran an immigration business and defrauded innocent people.

His lawyer Vipul Jindal argued that false allegations were made and that the accused did not dupe the “victim” of Rs 11 crore. The investigation into the case allegedly led to the recovery of Rs 54 lakh.

Jindal added that even the prosecution case was that the money was paid to various accused and the complainant was only acting as an intermediary. He maintained that the accused had fully cooperated with the investigation. Objecting to the prayer, the government lawyer argued that he faces 21 cases and is a flight risk.

The court said: “There is no doubt that the charges leveled against the applicant indicate the seriousness of the offence. However, the applicant continues to be in custody for more than a year as a defendant. Even the case is mainly based on the testimony of official witnesses and the complainant has no power to influence the witnesses. “In addition, the offenses are subject to trial in the Magistrates’ Court and there is no chance of the trial ending early.”

Citing the verdicts of the Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari v. State of UP and Maulana Mohd Amir Rashadi v. State of UP, Justice Shekhawat said it was held that the presence of several criminal cases against the accused could not be a ground for refusal of bail. The court also set strict conditions for his release.