2015 (4) TMI 1289 - HC - Indian Laws

Grant of Bail - Advancing of Gold Loans - accepting Illegal gratification - HELD THAT - Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SANJAY CHANDRA VERSUS CBI 2011 (11) TMI 537 - SUPREME COURT makes it clear that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial. It is further observed that the object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative and that deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment unless it is required to ensure that the accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The Supreme Court further observed that when a person is punished by denial of bail in respect of any matter upon which he has not been convicted it would be contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution except in cases where there is reason to believe that he will tamper with the witnesses. In the present case there is no gainsaying the fact that the applicant is charged of an economic offence of some magnitude. However, the fact that the investigating agency has already completed investigation and the charge sheet has already been filed cannot be lost sight of. Furthermore there is no hint or allegation that the accused 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 has already been in custody for more than five months. The applicant is entitled to grant of bail pending trial on stringent conditions - application disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for the accused in FIR No. 11/2014 involving Sections 406/420/120B I.P.C.

Analysis:
1. Bail Application: The petitioner, accused in an economic offense case, sought bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The petitioner had been in judicial custody since November 2014, with the charge sheet filed in December 2014 after thorough investigation.

2. Defense Argument: The defense argued that there were no allegations of illegal gratification against the petitioner, who was a bank manager. They highlighted delays in the trial due to pending reports and the impact on the petitioner's family, especially minor children.

3. Prosecution Argument: The prosecution contended that the petitioner exceeded financial limits and engaged in conspiracy by favoring beneficiaries in loan approvals. The prosecution accused the petitioner of connivance with appraisers in advancing loans amounting to Rs. 21.30 crores.

4. Precedent Reference: The judgment cited the case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, emphasizing the purpose of bail to secure the accused's trial appearance. It highlighted that bail is not punitive and should only be denied in exceptional circumstances.

5. Decision: The court acknowledged the economic offense's severity but noted the completion of the investigation and filing of the charge sheet. There was no flight risk or evidence tampering concern. Hence, the court granted bail to the petitioner on stringent conditions to ensure trial attendance and prevent interference with the case.

6. Bail Conditions: The court ordered the petitioner's release on a personal bond with sureties, surrender of passport if not already done, and compliance with specific conditions to prevent tampering with evidence or witness intimidation.

7. Final Order: The court granted bail to the petitioner, considering the completed investigation and absence of flight risk or tampering concerns. The petitioner was directed to adhere to strict conditions to secure trial attendance and prevent interference with the case.