9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (2) TMI 1267 - HC - Money LaunderingGrant of Regular Bail - charges have already been framed against the applicant - violation of provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - HELD THAT - In the present case, it is evident that the applicant has been charged with an economic offence of some magnitude. However, the fact that the investigating agency has already completed investigation and filed the challan; the circumstance that charges already stand framed against the applicant; and the circumstance that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 13.04.2015, cannot be lost sight of. Furthermore, it has not been urged on behalf of the prosecution that the applicant is a flight risk nor is there any material to suggest that he will tamper with the evidence. Therefore, the presence of the applicant in further custody is not necessary. The applicant is entitled to grant of bail pending trial on stringent conditions - it is directed that the applicant be released on bail on his executing a personal bond in the sum of ₹ 5,00,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court subject to further condition that the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts to the court or to any other authority and subject to further condition that the applicant shall remain present before the court on the date fixed for hearing of the case - Application disposed off.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. Consideration of the applicant's judicial custody duration and the completion of the investigation. 3. Applicability of precedents set by the Supreme Court and High Court in similar cases. 4. The severity of the charges under Section 409 IPC and its implications on bail. 5. The likelihood of the applicant tampering with evidence or being a flight risk. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: The applicant sought regular bail in FIR No.48/2015, registered under Sections 403/409/417/418/420/421/477/120-B IPC. The court considered the principles laid out in the Supreme Court's decision in *Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation* and other relevant judgments. The objective of bail is to ensure the accused's appearance at trial and is neither punitive nor preventative. The court emphasized that pre-conviction detention should only be used to secure attendance at trial or prevent tampering with witnesses. 2. Consideration of the applicant's judicial custody duration and the completion of the investigation: The applicant had been in judicial custody since 13.04.2015, and the charge sheet was filed on 10.07.2015, with charges framed on 08.02.2015. The court noted that the investigation was complete, and the applicant had been in custody for a significant period. The court referenced *Rajat Sharma vs. State of NCT of Delhi*, highlighting that prolonged pre-conviction detention is contrary to the concept of personal liberty unless necessary to ensure trial attendance or prevent evidence tampering. 3. Applicability of precedents set by the Supreme Court and High Court in similar cases: The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in *Sanjay Chandra* and the High Court's decisions in *Rajat Sharma* and *Sharad Kumar vs. CBI*. These cases underscored that bail should not be denied as a form of punishment prior to conviction. The court also noted that the Supreme Court's decision in *Sanjay Chandra* was binding and applicable, even though the applicant was charged under Section 409 IPC, which carries a potential life sentence. 4. The severity of the charges under Section 409 IPC and its implications on bail: The prosecution argued that the applicant was charged under Section 409 IPC, which entails a sentence that may extend to life imprisonment. However, the court, referencing *Sharad Kumar*, observed that the Supreme Court was aware of the severity of the charges in *Sanjay Chandra* and still granted bail. The court emphasized that it could not deny bail based on the severity of the charges alone, especially when the Supreme Court's precedent was clear. 5. The likelihood of the applicant tampering with evidence or being a flight risk: The court found no material evidence suggesting that the applicant was a flight risk or would tamper with evidence. The prosecution did not argue that the applicant posed such risks. Consequently, the court concluded that further custody of the applicant was not necessary. Conclusion: The court directed that the applicant be released on bail, subject to stringent conditions, including executing a personal bond of Rs. 5,00,000 with two sureties of the same amount. The applicant was also required to surrender his passport and not make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the case facts. The application was disposed of accordingly.
|
