2020 (3) TMI 983 - HC - Indian Laws

Bail application - allegation that the accused had taken away money form her in the context of chit fund - HELD THAT - Petitioners remained proclaimed offenders from 2016 to 2019. Now they are in custody since 28.06.2019. The case is triable by the Magistrate. Only one prosecution witness has been examined so far and the cross-examination of PW 1 was deferred as the prosecution wanted to file an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The filing of application under Section 319 Cr.P.C and decision thereof, would give rise to some more time for commencement of the trial in accordance with law. In such situation, bail can be granted to the petitioners on stringent condition in order to ward off any apprehension of the prosecution that the petitioners may flee from justice. The petitioners are directed to be released on regular bail on their furnishing adequate bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

Summary

Issues:
Grant of regular bail in a case involving FIR under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 120-B IPC.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Grant of Regular Bail
The prayer was for the grant of regular bail in a case involving FIR No.240 dated 21.09.2015 under various sections of the IPC. The complainant alleged that money was taken from her in the context of a chit fund, with several individuals involved in transactions and guarantees. The complainant sought to improve her case during proceedings, adding details and dates to her original complaint. The petitioners argued that the trial of the case would be prolonged due to various factors, including the health condition of one petitioner suffering from seizures and a history of cerebrovascular accident. The third accused remained at large. The State counsel opposed the bail, citing the petitioners' history of delay and non-compliance with court orders, leading to their arrest in 2019.

Issue 2: Legal Proceedings
The legal proceedings involved examination of the complainant as PW-1, with delays in the trial due to the prosecution's intention to file an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The petitioners were declared proclaimed offenders in 2016 and arrested in 2019. The High Court had previously dismissed their anticipatory bail plea. The court noted that only one prosecution witness had been examined, and the trial was yet to commence fully. The petitioners were directed to surrender their passports and granted regular bail on furnishing adequate bail/surety bonds, with a reference to the case of Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI, emphasizing the right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Conclusion
The High Court granted regular bail to the petitioners, considering the delay in trial proceedings, the health condition of one petitioner, and the need to prevent any flight from justice. The decision did not reflect an opinion on the merits of the case, emphasizing the importance of upholding constitutional rights even in economic offenses.