Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a petition filed by the petitioner under Section of the seeking anticipatory bail, Anoop Chitkara, J., stated that the evidence collected was primarily documentary, and pointed towards the petitioner’s involvement, knowledge and awareness of the fraud perpetrated by her and her husband. There was sufficient prima facie evidence connecting the petitioner with the alleged offense. The Court further stated that although the evidence might be prima facie sufficient to launch prosecution or to frame charges and even to deny anticipatory bail, the Court was considering granting her bail.
Given the sensitive nature of this stage, the absence of a mother’s direct involvement could detrimentally affect the child’s emotional resilience, adaptation, and overall well-being, the Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Background
Since, all the petitions were related to the similar nature of fraud and the only difference was the amount, therefore the petitions were adjudicated by the common order.
In the present case, the FIR was registered against the unknown officers and employees of the correspondence branch of the Rohitash Degree College and Rohitash College of Management, for offences under Sections , , , , , , of the and Section of .
During investigation, it was found that the trustees of the Rohitash Degree College, the petitioner and his husband, in connivance with their employee and officials/officers of higher education department after hatching a criminal conspiracy prepared forged, fabricated documents i.e. Adhar Card Bank accounts. Further, they siphoned off the government money amounting Rs. 2,58,59,200 by means of corruption and caused huge loss to the state exchequer. Further, during investigation it was revealed that the said amount was transferred directly to the accounts of the students, but the amount was not credited in the accounts of students as the accounts were fake. Hence, the bank concerned had sent the amount back to the higher education branch Panchkula.
Further, the said amount was transferred in the account which pertained to Rohitash Degree College and Rohitash College of Management. Moreover, it was alleged that the said amount was not disbursed in the accounts of students and used by petitioner himself.
The petitioner submitted that whatever amount was allegedly embezzled went to the account of the Institute/College and the State was at liberty to recover the same from the College in accordance with law. Further, by imposing any stringent conditions and pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and their family.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court stated that the evidence collected was primarily documentary, and pointed towards the petitioner’s involvement, knowledge and awareness of the fraud perpetrated by her and her husband. There was sufficient prima facie evidence connecting the petitioner with the alleged offense. The Court further stated that although the evidence might be prima facie sufficient to launch prosecution or to frame charges and even to deny anticipatory bail, the Court was considering granting her bail.
The Court stated that the petitioner was the mother of a ten-year old daughter, and her husband, who was a co-accused in the case, was currently in judicial custody following the dismissal of his anticipatory bail by this Court. Further, the Court noted that the petitioner’s counsel had made a strong plea emphasizing that the petitioner was unable to entrust her daughter’s care to any immediate family member.
The legal issue which arose in the present case was whether the petitioner’s bail could justifiably be denied on the grounds of parity, considering the father’s bail was refused without the presumption of innocence. The Court stated that as parens patriae, it had the responsibility to safeguard the child’s interests and could not relinquish this duty by placing her welfare in the hands of relatives. This was especially pertinent given that the mother, as the primary custodian, had explicitly expressed a lack of confidence in the capacity of any immediate family members to adequately ensure her daughter’s safety, education, and emotional and social well-being, thereby compromising her overall security and welfare.
The Court stated that notwithstanding the existence of prima facie evidence against the petitioner, it was justified in granting the bail to the petitioner, considering the overarching well-being and needs of the child. The Court refrained from questioning the mother’s judgment as it is generally accepted that, under ordinary circumstances, no one was better positioned to assess a child’s safety and best interests than her mother.
The Court stated that at the age of a ten, a child entered early adolescence, a critical phase of cognitive, emotional, and social development. During this formative period, the child’s psychological and physical needs change significantly, requiring constant guidance, emotional stability, and nurturing. The mother’s role was particularly pivotal at this juncture, as she provided not only the primary emotional support but also helped to shape the child’s evolving sense of identity, security, and moral framework. The Court stated that the mother’s presence was essential for fostering a stable environment and was critical for navigating the complexities of early adolescence, including emerging independence, social pressures, and the development of self-esteem. Given the sensitive nature of this stage, the absence of a mother’s direct involvement could detrimentally affect the child’s emotional resilience, adaptation, and overall well-being.
Further, without commenting on the merits of the case, the Court stated that the petitioner made the case for a bail. Provided the petitioner was not required in any other case, the Court stated that the petitioner should be released on anticipatory bail in the FIR subject to furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. Before accepting the surety, the Officer/Court concerned must be satisfied that if the accused failed to appear, such surety could produce the accused.
The Court stated that the petitioner was directed to join the investigation within seven days as and when called by the investigator. The petitioner should be in deemed custody for Section of the and should join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer or any Superior Officer and should cooperate with the investigation at all further stages as required. In the event of failure to do so, the prosecution would be open to seeking cancellation of the bail. During the investigation, the petitioner should not be subjected to third-degree, indecent language, inhuman treatment, etc.
The Court stated that the petitioner should abide by all the statutory bond conditions and appear before the Court(s) concerned on all dates. The petitioner should not tamper with the evidence, influence, browbeat, pressurize, induce, threaten, or promise, directly or indirectly, any witnesses, Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case or dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police or the Court.
[Veena Yadav v. State of Haryana, CRM-M-30947 of 2024, decided on 27-09-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Bipan Ghai, Sr. Advocate with Nikhil Ghai, Advocate; P.S.Bindra, Advocate; Malini Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Vikrant Pamboo, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
Corresponding Section of
Corresponding Section of (‘BNS’)
Corresponding Section of
Corresponding Section of
Corresponding Section of
Corresponding Section of
Corresponding Section of
Corresponding Section of
Corresponding Section Proviso of
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Buy Penal Code, 1860
The post appeared first on .