9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 1321X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plicant had evaded arrest on an earlier occasion is not sustainable, inasmuch as, no proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. had admittedly been instituted against him at any point of time. The applicant is entitled to grant of bail pending trial on stringent conditions. Also, the circumstances that the investigating agency has already completed investigation; the charge sheet has been filed; order on charge has been rendered on 12th February, 2016; and the applicant has been in judicial custody since 19.04.2015 cannot be lost sight of - thus, the presence of the applicant in further custody is not necessary. It is directed that the applicant be released on regular bail pending trial on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of ₹ 1,00,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court subject to the further conditions imposed - application allowed. - Bail Appln. 2707/2015 and Crl. M. (Bail) No. 8361/2015 - - - Dated:- 24-2-2016 - Siddharth Mridul, J. For Appellant: Sunil K. Mittal, Kartickay Mathur, Sanket Gupta and Anshul Mittal, Advocates For Respondents: M.S. Oberoi, APP and Arun Dev Nehra, Inspector JUDGMENT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een registered at Police Station- Economic Offences Wing, Delhi against him and he is already been charge-sheeted in that case. d) The applicant has no permanent address in Delhi and there is a distinct possibility that he shall not be available to stand trial. 6. In a landmark decision in Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported as (2012) 1 SCC 40, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India crystallized the law in respect of regular bail in the following paragraphs:- 20. The appellants are facing trial in respect of the offences under Sections 420-B, 468,471 and 109 of the Penal Code, 1860 and Section 13(2) read with 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Bail has been refused first by the Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi and subsequently, by the High Court. Both the courts have listed the factors, which they think, are relevant for refusing the bail applications filed by the applicants as seriousness of the charge; the nature of the evidence in support of the charge; the likely sentence to be imposed upon conviction; the possibility of interference with the witnesses; the objection of the prosecuting authorities and the possibility of abscondi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... factor that also requires to be taken note of is the punishment that could be imposed after trial and conviction, both under the Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. Otherwise, if the former is the only test, we would not be balancing the constitutional rights but rather recalibrating the scales of justice . 25. The provisions of CrPC confer discretionary jurisdiction on criminal courts to grant bail to the accused pending trial or in appeal against convictions; since the jurisdiction is discretionary, it has to be exercised with great care and caution by balancing the valuable right of liberty of an individual and the interest of the society in general. In our view, the reasoning adopted by the learned District Judge, which is affirmed by the High Court, in our opinion, is a denial of the whole basis of our system of law and normal rule of bail system. It transcends respect for the requirement that a man shall be considered innocent until he is found guilty. If such power is recognised, then it may lead to chaotic situation and would jeopardise the personal liberty of an individual. xxxxx xxxxx 39. Coming back to the facts of the present case, both ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of the respondent that the accused, if released on bail, would interfere with the trial or tamper with evidence. We do not see any good reason to detain the accused in custody, that too, after the completion of the investigation and filing of the charge-sheet. 46. We are conscious of the fact that the accused are charged with economic offences of huge magnitude. We are also conscious of the fact that the offences alleged, if proved, may jeopardise the economy of the country. At the same time, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the investigating agency has already completed investigation and the charge-sheet is already filed before the Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi. Therefore, their presence in the custody may not be necessary for further investigation. We are of the view that the appellants are entitled to the grant of bail pending trial on stringent conditions in order to ally the apprehension expressed by CBI. 7. At this juncture, it has been brought to my notice by Mr. Aman Lekhi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant that in Sanjay Chandra (supra), the Supreme Court had enlarged the applicant in that case on bail in view of the circumsta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aforesaid facts, the Supreme Court has released the co-accused persons Sanjay Chandra's case (Supra) on bail, the said benefit cannot be denied to the petitioners on the grounds of parity. Moreover, the offences of which the petitioners in general have been charged, carries a punishment of five years under Prevention of Corruption Act or the IPC in comparison to the accused persons in Sanjay Chandra's case (supra) where it carried 7 years. So in a way petitioners stand is on better footing, therefore, they ought not to be denied the benefit of bail. Moreover, the Supreme Court order, which is passed in Sanjay Chandra's case (supra) is binding on the High Court. The High Court cannot while considering the bail applications of the present accused persons do hair splitting of the order of the Supreme Court and make out a distinction when there is none so as to deny the benefit of said order to the petitioners by saying that the petitioners are charged for the offence of conspiracy under Section 120B IPC red with section 409 IPC which carries the life imprisonment. It will be also in my view would be violative of Article 141 of the Constitution, which lays down that the Hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chandra's Case (supra) fit to grant bail. These judgments are Official Liquidator Vs. Dayanand Ors. (2008) 10 SCC 1, State of Bihar Vs. Kalika Kuer @ Kalika Singh Ors. (2003) 5 SCC 448, Ajmer Singh Vs. State of Haryana, (2010) 3 SCC 746, Izharul Haq Abdul Hamid Shaikh Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat, (2009) 5 SCC 283, Dinbandhu Sharma Vs. State, 87 (2000) DKT 149, Director of Settlements, A.P. Ors. Vs. M.R. Apparao Anr., (2002) 4 SCC 638, Saganthi Suresh Kumar Vs. Jagdeeshan, (2002) 2 SCC 420 and Indian Airlines Vs. Union of India Ors., 128 (2006) DLT 505 (DB). 8. Consequently, the contention raised on behalf of the prosecution is not tenable. 9. Mr. Sud, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant would invite my attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in Gautam Kundu vs. Manoj Kumar reported as. The judgment relied on behalf of the complainant does not come to their aid, inasmuch as, the applicant in that case was inter alia charged with violation of provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. 10. It is also noticed that the decision of the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra (supra) had not been brought to the notice of the Hon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation of liberty must be considered a punishment unless it is required to ensure that the accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The Supreme Court further observed that when a person is punished by denial of bail in respect of any matter upon which he has not been convicted it would be contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution except in cases where there is reason to believe that he will tamper with the witnesses. To encapsulate, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that pre- conviction detention should not be resorted to except in cases of necessity to secure attendance at the trial or upon material that the accused will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty. 8. In the present case there is no gainsaying the fact that the applicant is charged of an economic offence of some magnitude. However, the fact that the investigating agency has already completed investigation and the chargesheet has already been filed cannot be lost sight of. Furthermore there is no hint or allegation that the accused is a flight risk; nor is there any material to suggest that he will tamper with the evidence. Therefore, in my view, the presence o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the proposition urged on behalf of Mr. Aman Lekhi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant. However, in my view, the same are not apposite in the factual matrix of the present case, inasmuch as, in Amarmani Tripathi (supra), the applicant had been charged with murder and tampering of evidence, manipulating, threatening witnesses and abusing his influence as a Member of Parliament. So far as the accusations in Kannapan (supra) are concerned, the applicants therein were accused of bringing in excessive amount of explosives in a clandestine manner and employing them unauthorizedly in violation of Explosive Substances Act. 17. The present case, as is evident from the facts extracted hereinabove, is that the applicant has been charged with an economic offence which cannot by any stretch of the expression be called a heinous offence of the category of which the applicants had been charged in the decisions cited by Mr. Aman Lekhi hereinabove. 18. In the present case, it is observed that there is no material to suggest that the applicant was tampering with the evidence. There is also no hint or allegation that he will influence the witnesses. The applicant has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
