2008 (9) TMI 1041 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Violation of Fundamental Rights under Articles 14, 19, 20, and 21 of the Constitution.
2. Long period of incarceration as an under-trial prisoner.
3. Applicability of Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
4. Request for bail and consolidation of cases.
5. Allegations of fraud and non-bailable offenses.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Violation of Fundamental Rights under Articles 14, 19, 20, and 21 of the Constitution:
The petitioner, an under-trial prisoner since August 1998, claimed violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, 20, and 21 of the Constitution. He argued that his prolonged detention without trial infringed upon his rights, particularly under Article 21, which ensures the right to life and personal liberty.

2. Long period of incarceration as an under-trial prisoner:
The petitioner had been in jail for over ten years without trial commencement in several cases. He contended that despite being granted bail in some cases, he remained incarcerated due to other pending cases. The petitioner highlighted that in some cases, he had not been produced before the Magistrate, preventing him from applying for bail.

3. Applicability of Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
The petitioner invoked Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides for the release of under-trial prisoners who have been detained for a period extending to one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment for the alleged offense. The respondents argued that Section 436A, inserted by the Amendment Act of 2005, does not apply retrospectively to the petitioner's case. However, the Court acknowledged the petitioner's prolonged detention and considered granting limited relief.

4. Request for bail and consolidation of cases:
The petitioner sought directions for his release on bail and consolidation of all pending cases in one court. The Court referred to the precedent set in V.K. Sharma v. Union of India, where similar relief was granted. However, the decision in V.K. Sharma was overruled by a three-judge bench in State of Punjab v. Rajesh Syal, which held that consolidation of cases and trial in one court is contrary to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

5. Allegations of fraud and non-bailable offenses:
The petitioner faced multiple charges under Sections 406, 409, 420 read with Section 120B of the IPC, and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The respondents argued that the petitioner committed systematic fraud, amassing crores of rupees from the public and failing to refund the amounts. They maintained that the petitioner's detention was lawful and necessary given the non-bailable nature of the offenses.

Judgment:
The Court acknowledged the petitioner's prolonged detention and the need for limited relief. It issued the following directions:
1. If the petitioner applies for bail, the appropriate Court will release him on bail on executing a bond to the satisfaction of the Court.
2. If the petitioner is likely to be arrested, the Arresting Officer shall release him on bail on executing a bond to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer.
3. The relief is granted only for cases where the petitioner is arrested in his capacity as Managing Director/Director of Imperial Forestry Corporation Ltd.
4. The petitioner must assure his presence in court as required.
5. The petitioner can apply for exemption from personal appearance, subject to the Court's terms and conditions.
6. The petitioner must surrender his passport to the police authorities until the final disposal of all cases.
7. The investigating agency may move for cancellation of bail if the petitioner misuses the liberty granted.
8. The directions are issued in special circumstances due to the petitioner's prolonged detention.

The writ petition was partly allowed to the extent indicated above, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties.