2020 (11) TMI 1070 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of regular bail - adoption of fraudulent means to usurp the scholarship amount - HELD THAT - In Sanjay Chandra's case 2011 (11) TMI 537 - SUPREME COURT , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that it is not in the interest of justice that accused should be in jail for an indefinite period. No doubt, the offence alleged against the accused is a serious one in terms of alleged huge loss to the State exchequer, that, by itself, should not deter the Court from enlarging the accused on bail when there is no serious contention of the State that the accused, if released on bail, would interfere with the trial or tamper with evidence. It is deemed appropriate to negate the contention of learned State counsel for dismissal of the bail in view of serious allegations and pending investigation of the case. Petitioner is in judicial custody since 07.09.2020 and is not required for any further investigation of the case. The offences are triable by the Magistrate. It is deemed appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on regular bail - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Grant of regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in case involving allegations of fraudulent means to usurp scholarship amount, involvement of multiple accused, consideration of gravity of economic offences in bail applications, and impact of COVID-19 pandemic on bail decisions.

Analysis:
The case involved a petition seeking regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a matter concerning allegations of fraudulent means to usurp scholarship amounts meant for post matric students. The FIR alleged that the petitioner, along with other accused, was involved in getting students admitted to a university under false pretenses, siphoning off scholarship funds amounting to Rs.24,51,760/-. The petitioner argued that there were no specific allegations against him and that he had resigned from his position before the alleged offences took place. The prosecution primarily relied on the disclosure statements of the accused, with no incriminating material against the petitioner. The petitioner's counsel highlighted that other accused individuals had already been granted bail, emphasizing the petitioner's lack of involvement and the absence of any personal gain.

The petitioner's counsel further argued that even in cases of economic offences, bail conditions could be imposed, referring to various legal precedents emphasizing that bail is the rule and refusal is the exception to ensure fair trial opportunities for the accused. The gravity of the offence, as well as the consequences on society in cases of financial irregularities, were highlighted as factors to be considered by the Court. The judgment referenced several legal cases to underscore the importance of balancing the gravity of the offence with the principles of bail jurisprudence, emphasizing that each case should be evaluated based on its unique circumstances.

The Court considered the submissions made by both parties, noting that the petitioner had been in custody since September 2020 and that the offences were triable by the Magistrate. In light of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and without delving into the merits of the case, the Court deemed it appropriate to grant regular bail to the petitioner, subject to the satisfaction of the trial Court regarding bail bonds and surety bonds. The decision to grant bail was based on the lack of serious contentions from the State regarding interference with trial or evidence tampering if the petitioner was released on bail. The judgment emphasized that the decision to grant bail was not an expression of any opinion on the merits of the case, highlighting the procedural nature of the bail decision in this instance.