9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 410X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. This is a matter that will, of course, be dealt with by the trial judge. However, what is important, as far as we are concerned, is that during the entire period of investigations which appear to have been spread over seven months, the appellant was not arrested by the investigating officer. Even when the appellant apprehended that he might be arrested after the charge sheet was filed against him, he was not arrested for a considerable period of time. When he approached the Allahabad High Court for quashing the FIR lodged against him, he was granted two months time to appear before the trial judge. All these facts are an indication that there was no apprehension that the appellant would abscond or would hamper the trial in any manner. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case. 4. While so introspecting, among the factors that need to be considered is whether the accused was arrested during investigations when that person perhaps has the best opportunity to tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses. If the investigating officer does not find it necessary to arrest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quirements of Article 21 of the Constitution and the fact that there is enormous overcrowding in prisons, leading to social and other problems as noticed by this Court in In Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons . (2017) 10 SCC 658 6. The historical background of the provision for bail has been elaborately and lucidly explained in a recent decision delivered in NikeshTarachand Shah v. Union of India 2017 (13) SCALE 609 going back to the days of the Magna Carta. In that decision, reference was made to Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565 in which it is observed that it was held way back in Nagendra v. King-Emperor AIR 1924 Cal 476 that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. Referenc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eque in violation of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 10. Thereafter the complainant filed Complaint Case No. 206 of 2016 on or about 21st January, 2016 alleging the commission of an offence by the appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Cognizance was taken and summons issued to the appellant by the concerned Magistrate in the complaint case. 11. Much later, on or about 15th August, 2016, the investigating officer filed a charge sheet against the appellant being Case Crime No. 18 of 2017. It is not clear why the Case Crime was registered so late (it may be a typo), but be that as it may, it appears that during the investigations the appellant was not arrested. 12. Fearing arrest aft ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pecial leave to appeal and two days time was granted for this purpose since the appellant was in judicial custody for a considerable period. 15. Even though the State of Uttar Pradesh has been served in the appeal, no one has put in appearance on its behalf. As far as the complainant is concerned, no reply was filed by the time the matter was taken up for consideration on 29th January, 2018. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned to 2nd February, 2018 by which date also no reply was filed by the complainant. As mentioned above, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh to oppose the grant of bail to the appellant. 16. Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently contended that the appellant had duped him of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
