9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (8) TMI 229 - HC - Money LaunderingGrant of Interim Bail/Parole - categorization by way of exclusion of UTPs lodged in the jails in Delhi as under trial prisoners qua the alleged commission of offences - allegations levelled against the petitioner herein through the alleged commission of economic offences inter alia punishable under the PMLA Act, 2002 as also qua an offence punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 which is punishable with the imprisonment for life or that which it may extend to ten years and to a fine - HELD THAT - The Hon ble High Powered Committee whilst considering the representation of the applicant observed also to the effect that the submissions made in the representation, related to the applicant only, but, that the Committee, was not formed to look into merits or demerits of an individual case for being released on interim bail and rather it was formed to lay down a criteria taking into consideration a particular class and not any particular prisoner or inmate and that the Committee thus, was of the opinion that the representation filed by the applicant/petitioner herein was unmerited and the same was accordingly rejected. Significantly, however, the Hon ble High Powered Committee made it clear that the guidelines and minutes of the Committee for release of prisoners on interim bail vide criterion adopted in the meetings dated 28.03.2020, 07.04.2020, 18.04.2020, 05.05.2020, 18.05.2020 and 20.06.2020, would in no way affect the rights of other UTPs, who do not stand covered under these categories, from invoking the jurisdiction of concerned courts for grant of regular/interim bail. The Hon ble High Powered Committee further observed to the effect that the applicant was at liberty to file the bail application before the concerned Courts, and the same as and when filed, may be considered by the concerned Court on merits, in accordance with law. The contention raised by the petitioner that the Hon ble High Powered Committee vide its minutes dated 28.03.2020 which have been included in the present petition and the subsequent minutes till the date 31.07.2020 had in any manner supplanted the provisions of Sections 437/438/439 of the Cr.P.C., 1973,- cannot be accepted and thus, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that the criterion laid down by the Hon ble High Powered Committee observing to the effect that the category of persons alienated in its minutes dated 28.03.2020 which may not be considered for the grant of interim bail in terms of the orders of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No.1/2020- IN RE CONTAGION OF COVID 19 VIRUS IN PRISONS, stifles the right to liberty of the petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution of India or the right to life under the Constitution of India, is wholly untenable. It is thus, essential to observe that the release of an accused on bail or on interim bail in a non-bailable offence, which he/she is alleged to have committed, is not a vested right in any accused/convict and falls within the discretionary jurisdiction of the Court concerned to grant or not to grant the prayer of an accused seeking bail or interim bail - It is essential to observe that economic offences are offences which corrode the fabric of democracy and are committed with total disregard to the rights and interest of the nation and are committed by breach of trust and faith and are against the national economy and national interest and that such nature of offences have not been considered by the Hon ble High Powered Committee vide its minutes dated 28.03.2020 to fall within the ambit of the grant of discretionary interim bail by the factum simpliciter of the prevalence of the COVID19 corona pandemic, cannot be termed to be an arbitrary exercise of discretion for laying down the guidelines in relation to the category of alleged commission of offence in which an accused may be allowed to be released on interim bail only on the ground of prevalence of the COVID-19 corona pandemic. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that there has been an arbitrary and unjust classification made by the Hon ble High Powered Committee of this Court vide minutes dated 28.03.2020 as adhered to till the minutes dated 31.07.2020, qua offences falling under cases under the PMLA Act and those investigated by the CBI/ED/NIA /Special Cell of Delhi Police and Terror related Cases, cases under Anti National Activities and Unlawful Activities(Prevention) Act etc., cannot be accepted as it cannot be contended that these said offences have not been distinguished from other offences on the basis of any intelligible differentia. The prayer made in the petition is declined, however, it is open to the petitioner to seek redressal in accordance with law in terms of Chapter XXXIII of the Cr.P.C., 1973 to seek the grant of bail, which apparently necessarily has to be considered on its own merits as already observed by the Hon ble High Powered Committee vide its minutes dated 20.06.2020 whilst rejecting the representation of the petitioner against the classification in relation to economic offence vide its minutes dated 28.03.2020.
Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of the minutes of the High Powered Committee meeting held on 28.03.2020. 2. Direction to release the petitioner on bail/parole. 3. Validity of the categorization and exclusion of certain under-trial prisoners (UTPs) by the High Powered Committee. Detailed Analysis: 1. Quashing of the minutes of the High Powered Committee meeting held on 28.03.2020: The petitioner sought to quash the minutes of the High Powered Committee meeting held on 28.03.2020, which categorized and excluded certain UTPs from being considered for interim bail/parole during the COVID-19 pandemic. The petitioner argued that the classification was arbitrary, unjust, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner contended that the Committee could not supplant the rights of UTPs for bail/parole under Sections 437 and 439 of the Cr.P.C., 1973, and that the guidelines should supplement the substantive law. The Court observed that the High Powered Committee was constituted following the Supreme Court's order dated 23.03.2020 in Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No.1/2020, which left it to the Committee to determine the category of prisoners to be released based on various factors, including the nature of the offence and the severity of the sentence. The Committee's decision to exclude certain categories of UTPs, including those accused of economic offences, was based on objective satisfaction and reasonable classification. The Court held that the Committee's guidelines did not preclude UTPs from seeking bail through the regular judicial process and did not supplant the provisions of Sections 437/438/439 of the Cr.P.C., 1973. 2. Direction to release the petitioner on bail/parole: The petitioner sought immediate release on bail/parole, arguing that the exclusion from the Committee's guidelines was unconstitutional. The Court noted that the petitioner had the right to seek bail through the regular judicial process and that the Committee's guidelines did not affect this right. The Court emphasized that the release of an accused on bail or interim bail in a non-bailable offence is not a vested right and falls within the discretionary jurisdiction of the Court. The Court declined the prayer for quashing the Committee's minutes but clarified that the petitioner could seek bail in accordance with the law, and such applications would be considered on their merits. The Court reiterated that the guidelines were intended to decongest prisons during the pandemic and did not amount to a compulsory release of prisoners. 3. Validity of the categorization and exclusion of certain under-trial prisoners (UTPs) by the High Powered Committee: The petitioner argued that the exclusion of UTPs accused of economic offences from the Committee's guidelines was arbitrary and lacked intelligible differentia. The Court observed that economic offences are serious crimes that corrode the fabric of democracy and affect the national economy. The Committee's decision to exclude such offences from the category of prisoners eligible for interim bail during the pandemic was reasonable and based on objective criteria. The Court held that the classification made by the Committee was not arbitrary or unjust and was in line with the Supreme Court's directions. The Committee's guidelines did not stifle the right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, as UTPs could still seek bail through the regular judicial process. Conclusion: The Court dismissed the petitioner's prayer to quash the Committee's minutes but allowed the petitioner to seek bail through the regular judicial process. The Court upheld the validity of the Committee's classification and exclusion of certain UTPs, including those accused of economic offences, from the category of prisoners eligible for interim bail during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Court emphasized that the guidelines were intended to decongest prisons and did not preclude UTPs from seeking bail in accordance with the law.
|
