9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 275X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioners are admitted to regular bail subject to their furnishing heavy bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned - It is made clear that the petitioners shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witnesses in any manner directly or indirectly. - CRM-M-11274-2021(O&M) and CRM-M-16234-2021 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 15-7-2022 - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Present : Mr. S.K. Garg Nirwana, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Amit Sharma and Mr. Vishal Garg Narwana, Advocates for the petitioner in CRM-M-11274-2021. Ms. Monita Mehta, Advocate for the petitioner in CRM-M-16234-2021. Mr. Kanwar Sanjiv Kumar, AAG Haryana. ***** VINOD S. BHARDWAJ. J. (ORAL) This common order has been passed in the above-mentioned criminal miscellaneous petitions as both the petitions arise out of the same FIR. 2. The instant petitions have been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'CrPC') for grant of regular bail to the petitioners in case bearing FIR No.45 dated 06.03.2019 under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed Vakil Chand (petitioner in CRM-M-16234-2021) is alleged to be the proprietor of the said firm. It is submitted that the name of the petitioner Sunil Kumar was nominated on the disclosure statement of co-accused Vakil Chand who was revealed to the officials of the Excise Department to be evading tax and to have availed input tax credit to the tune of Rs.9.66 crores. A reference is made to the statement of witnesses recorded by the investigating agency under Section 161 CrPC to contend that the alleged bogus bills in question are stated to have been issued in favour of the said persons who have already claimed to have deposited the tax along with interest due to the Government and as such, there is no loss to the public exchequer. He further contends that the trial is a Magisterial trial and the petitioner Vakil Chand is in custody since 07.12.2020 while petitioner Sunil Kumar is in custody since 18.12.2020. Both the petitioners do not have any other criminal case registered against them and have already undergone more than 1 years of actual custody. Besides, the investigation in the case is already complete and the trial has commenced and out of 17 witnesses so cited by the pros ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upled with the fact that the petitioners do not suffer from any criminal antecedents, I deem it appropriate to enlarge the petitioners on bail. No apprehension has been expressed by the State about the petitioners absconding from trial or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in the matter of Satender Kumar Antil Vs Central Bureau of Investigation and another as under:- DEFINITION OF BAIL 8. The term bail has not been defined in the Code, though is used very often. A bail is nothing but a surety inclusive of a personal bond from the accused. It means the release of an accused person either by the orders of the Court or by the police or by the Investigating Agency. 9. It is a set of pre-trial restrictions imposed on a suspect while enabling any interference in the judicial process. Thus, it is a conditional release on the solemn undertaking by the suspect that he would cooperate both with the investigation and the trial. The word bail has been defined in the Black s Law Dictionary, 9th Edn., pg. 160 as: - A security such as cash or a bond; esp., security required by a court for the release ofa prisoner who ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ped by the restrictions in the preceding Section 497 which corresponds to the present Section 437. It was observed by the Court that there was no hard-and-fast rule and no inflexible principle governing the exercise of the discretion conferred by Section 498 and that the only principle which was established was that the discretion should be exercised judiciously. In Emperor v. H.L. Hutchinson [Emperor v. H.L. Hutchinson, 1931 SCC OnLine All 14 : AIR 1931 All 356 : 1931 Cri LJ 1271] , AIR p. 358 it was said that it was very unwise to make an attempt to lay down any particular rules which will bind the High Court, having regard to the fact that the legislature itself left the discretion of the court unfettered. According to the High Court, the variety of cases that may arise from time to time cannot be safely classified and it is dangerous to make an attempt to classify the cases and to say that in particular classes a bail may be granted but not in other classes. It was observed that the principle to be deduced from the various sections in the Criminal Procedure Code was that grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception. An accused person who enjoys freedom is in a much ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd personal liberty of the citizens of India and other persons. It is the only article in the Fundamental Rights Chapter (along with Article 20) that cannot be suspended even in an emergency [see Article 359(1) of the Constitution]. At present, Article 21 is the repository of a vast number of substantive and procedural rights post Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248]. 12. Further this Court in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40, has observed that: 21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. 22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending compl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 2017 SCC 27: The right not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause is an essential element of an enlightened criminal justice system. It entrenches the effect of the presumption of innocence at the pre-trial stage of the criminal trial process and safeguards the liberty of accused persons. This right has two aspects: a person charged with an offence has the right not to be denied bail without just cause and the right to reasonable bail. Under the first aspect, a provision may not deny bail without just cause there is just cause to deny bail only if the denial occurs in a narrow set of circumstances, and the denial is necessary to promote the proper functioning of the bail system and is not undertaken for any purpose extraneous to that system. The second aspect, the right to reasonable bail, relates to the terms of bail, including the quantum of any monetary component and other restrictions that are imposed on the accused for the release period. It protects accused persons from conditions and forms of release that are unreasonable. While a bail hearing is an expedited procedure, the bail provisions are federal law and must be applied consistently and fairly in all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 015 SCC 27, [2015] 2 S.C.R. 328. 17. We may only state that notwithstanding the special provisions in many of the countries world-over governing the consideration for enlargement on bail, courts have always interpreted them on the accepted principle of presumption of innocence and held in favour of the accused. 18. The position in India is no different. It has been the consistent stand of the courts, including this Court, that presumption of innocence, being a facet of Article 21, shall inure to the benefit of the accused. Resultantly burden is placed on the prosecution to prove the charges to the court of law. The weightage of the evidence has to be assessed on the principle of beyond reasonable doubt. 9. There is no compelling circumstance as would call for continued custodial detention of an accused in a Magisterial trial when they have already undergone 1 years of actual sentence and the trial is still at the nascent stage and is likely to take long to conclude. Magnitude of a crime and it social impact are even though essential aspects to be kept in mind while constituting a bail petition, however, the same can not remain the sole ground for prolonging detent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
