Punjab & Haryana HC Grants Bail in ₹19.5 Lakh Arecanut Trade Fraud Case, Says Lack of Permanent Address Not Ground to Deny Liberty
Case Name: Sanjay Gordhanbhai Darji v. State of Haryana
Date of Judgment: September 30, 2025
Citation: CRM-M-39682-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara
Held: The High Court allowed the bail petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and ordered the release of the petitioner on regular bail in an FIR registered under Sections 406, 420, 468, and 120-B IPC. The Court emphasized that personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be curtailed solely because an accused lacks a permanent abode. Bail jurisprudence must balance the presumption of innocence with the need to ensure trial attendance. Given the petitioner’s clean antecedents, short pre-trial custody, and the fact that the offence is triable by a Magistrate, further incarceration was found unjustifiable. Strict conditions were imposed, including cancellation of bail if the petitioner repeats the offence.
Summary: The FIR arose from a complaint by a Gurugram businessman alleging that the petitioner and a co-accused induced him to supply 3,480 kg of arecanut supari worth ₹19.59 lakhs on false assurances, using forged documents and misrepresentation of business connections. The goods were collected but payment was never made. Investigation revealed that the petitioner gave a fake GST-registered address and conspired with another trader to divert the goods. The State opposed bail, citing the petitioner’s lack of permanent residence and flight risk, noting he had been arrested from an ashram after evading law for months. The complainant also opposed bail, alleging ingrained criminal tendencies. The Court, however, observed that lack of permanent abode cannot by itself justify denial of bail, as many citizens, ascetics, and itinerant persons may not have fixed residences. Relying on Supreme Court precedents such as Vaman Narain Ghiya v. State of Rajasthan (2008), State of Kerala v. Raneef (2011), Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra (2010), Babu Singh v. State of UP (1978), and Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2011), it held that bail must not become a pre-trial punishment and that trial delays cannot justify indefinite custody.
Decision: The High Court granted bail subject to conditions, including furnishing a personal bond and either surety or fixed deposit of ₹10,000, disclosure of Aadhaar and contact details, and strict compliance with bond obligations. It directed that if the petitioner repeats the offence or commits any non-bailable offence punishable with over seven years’ imprisonment, the State may apply for cancellation of bail. The petition was accordingly allowed.