9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (2) TMI 1321 - HC - Indian LawsSeeking grant of Regular Bail - Cheating - economic offence/heinous offence - Offence u/s 420/467/468/471/120B/34 IPC - HELD THAT - The present case, as is evident from the facts, is that the applicant has been charged with an economic offence which cannot by any stretch of the expression be called a heinous offence of the category of which the applicants had been charged - In the present case, it is observed that there is no material to suggest that the applicant was tampering with the evidence. There is also no hint or allegation that he will influence the witnesses. The applicant has already been enlarged on bail, under Sections 420/467/468/471/120B/34 IPC and is not stated to have abused the terms and conditions of that order of bail. The submission made on behalf of the prosecution to the effect that the applicant's son Sanjay Kumar was evading arrest and that circumstance disentitles the applicant from grant of bail, is not tenable, inasmuch as, the latter has already been enlarged on bail by the concerned Magistrate - Furthermore, the contention of the prosecution that the applicant had evaded arrest on an earlier occasion is not sustainable, inasmuch as, no proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. had admittedly been instituted against him at any point of time. The applicant is entitled to grant of bail pending trial on stringent conditions. Also, the circumstances that the investigating agency has already completed investigation; the charge sheet has been filed; order on charge has been rendered on 12th February, 2016; and the applicant has been in judicial custody since 19.04.2015 cannot be lost sight of - thus, the presence of the applicant in further custody is not necessary. It is directed that the applicant be released on regular bail pending trial on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of ₹ 1,00,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court subject to the further conditions imposed - application allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Application for regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. Applicant's conduct and previous involvements. 3. Legal principles governing the grant of bail. 4. Comparison with precedents and similar cases. 5. Conditions for granting bail. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Application for Regular Bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: The applicant, Jitender Kumar, sought regular bail in connection with FIR No. 219/2014, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, and 34 of the IPC at Police Station Amar Colony, Delhi. The applicant had been in judicial custody since April 19, 2015, and the charge sheet was filed on January 27, 2015, with the order on charge rendered on February 12, 2016. 2. Applicant's Conduct and Previous Involvements: The prosecution and the complainant argued that the applicant's conduct disqualified him from being granted bail. Key points included: - The applicant undertook to refund Rs. 1.10 crores but failed to do so. - The applicant evaded arrest until April 19, 2015, following the dismissal of his bail application and the issuance of a Non-Bailable Warrant. - The applicant had a previous involvement in another FIR No. 225/2011 under similar sections of the IPC. - The applicant lacked a permanent address in Delhi, raising concerns about his availability for trial. 3. Legal Principles Governing the Grant of Bail: The judgment referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, which outlined key principles for granting bail: - Bail is to secure the appearance of the accused at trial and is neither punitive nor preventative. - Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment unless necessary to ensure the accused's presence at trial. - Seriousness of the charge is relevant but not the sole factor; the potential punishment and the need to balance constitutional rights are also crucial. - The object of bail is to relieve the accused of imprisonment and the State of the burden of keeping him pending trial. 4. Comparison with Precedents and Similar Cases: The judgment discussed the case of Ashok Kumar vs. State (NCT of Delhi), where similar submissions were made. The court observed that the Supreme Court's decision in Sanjay Chandra was binding and that the High Court must respect orders from higher courts. The court also referenced other cases, including Rajat Sharma vs. State of NCT of Delhi and H.B. Chaturvedi vs. C.B.I., which reiterated that bail should not be withheld as punishment and that economic offences should not automatically result in bail denial. 5. Conditions for Granting Bail: The court concluded that the applicant was entitled to bail, considering: - The investigation was complete, and the charge sheet was filed. - The applicant had been in custody since April 19, 2015. - There was no material suggesting the applicant tampered with evidence or would influence witnesses. - The applicant had previously been granted bail in another case without violating conditions. The court directed that the applicant be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties of the same amount, subject to conditions including: - Not leaving the National Capital Territory of Delhi without prior permission. - Remaining present at trial court hearings. - Not making any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the case facts. - Surrendering his passport to the trial court. The bail application was allowed and disposed of accordingly, with a copy of the order provided to counsel for the parties.
|
