9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 766X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ME COURT] held There need not be any insistence of a bail application while considering the application under Section 88, 170, 204 and 209 of the Code. Keeping in view the facts, without commenting on the merits of the case, the incarceration suffered by the petitioners and the fact that investigation already stands concluded and in view of dictum of law laid down in Satender Kumar Antil's case, the present petitions are allowed. The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. Petition allowed. - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present: For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pratham Sethi, Advocate Mr. Kanish Sarup, Advocate and Mr. Taranjot Singh Sidara, Advocate in CRM-M-56306-2023 CRM-M-60491-2023. For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikram Chaudhri, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sunil Sihag, Advocate and Mr. Kunal Sharma, Advocate in CRM-M-836-2024, CRM-M-839-2024, CRM-M-864-2024, CRM-M-4049-2024, CRM-M-4861-2024 and CRM-M-4958-2024. For the Petitioner : Mr. P.S. Jammu, Advocate in CRM-M-4014-2024. For the Respondent: Mr. Ashok Kumar Sehr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... horities and provisions of Indian Penal Code. It is evident from the fact that the officer though has been provided with power under 1973 Code, but there is no power of custodial interrogation. The legislature has provided specific penal provisions in VAT Act, which is a complete code in itself. Officers have been clothed only with the power as provided under Code of 1973. Thus, jurisdiction of police stands excluded. Reliance is being placed upon Union of India vs. Ashok Kumar Sharma Ors. 2020 AIR (Supreme Court) 5274. 5. The parameters to be considered while deciding the prayer for bail are well laid down by Apex Court in the case of 'State through CBI vs. Amaramani Tripathi, reported as 2005(8) SCC 21', holding that: xx xx xx It is well settled that the matters to be considered in an application for bail are (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the charge; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of accused absconding or fleeing if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for us now to discuss are the economic offences. The question for consideration is whether it should be treated as a class of its own or otherwise. This issue has already been dealt with by this Court in the case of P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2020) 13 SCC 791 , after taking note of the earlier decisions governing the field. The gravity of the offence, the object of the Special Act, and the attending circumstances are a few of the factors to be taken note of, along with the period of sentence . After all, an economic offence cannot be classified as such, as it may involve various activities and may differ from one case to another. Therefore, it is not advisable on the part of the court to categorise all the offences into one group and deny bail on that basis. Suffice it to state that law, as laid down in the following judgements, will govern the field:- Precedents P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2020) 13 SCC 791: 23. Thus, from cumulative perusal of the judgments cited on either side including the one rendered by the Constitution Bench of this Court, it could be deduced that the basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e purpose of cheating using as genuine a forged document. The punishment for the offence is imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years. It is, no doubt, true that the nature of the charge may be relevant, but at the same time, the punishment to which the party may be liable, if convicted, also bears upon the issue. Therefore, in determining whether to grant bail, both the seriousness of the charge and the severity of the punishment should be taken into consideration. 40. The grant or refusal to grant bail lies within the discretion of the court. The grant or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. But at the same time, right to bail is not to be denied merely because of the sentiments of the community against the accused. The primary purposes of bail in a criminal case are to relieve the accused of imprisonment, to relieve the State of the burden of keeping him, pending the trial, and at the same time, to keep the accused constructively in the custody of the court, whether before or after conviction, to assure that he will submit to the jurisdiction of the court and be in attendance thereon whenever hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice . Decisions of this Court require the High Courts, in exercising the jurisdiction entrusted to them under Section 482, to act with circumspection. In emphasising that the High Court must exercise this power with a sense of restraint, the decisions of this Court are founded on the basic principle that the due enforcement of criminal law should not be obstructed by the accused taking recourse to artifices and strategies. The public interest in ensuring the due investigation of crime is protected by ensuring that the inherent power of the High Court is exercised with caution. That indeed is one and a significant end of the spectrum. The other end of the spectrum is equally important : the recognition by Section 482 of the power inhering in the High Court to prevent the abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice is a valuable safeguard for protecting liberty. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 was enacted by a legislature which was not subject to constitutional rights and limitations; yet it recognised the inherent power in Section 561-A. Post- Independence, the recognition by Parliament [ Section 482 CrPC, 1973] of the inhe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt held:- xx xx xx However, the evidence to prove accusations is primarily documentary in nature besides a few material witnesses. As held in Sanjay Chandra (supra) if seriousness of the offence on the basis of punishment provided is the only criteria, the Courts would not be balancing the Constitutional Rights but rather recalibrating the scales of justice. 9. In Anil Kumar versus State of Punjab 2013(3) RCR (Criminal) 854 it was held:- xx xx xx 9. The latest judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners is of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dipak Shubhashchandra Mehta (supra) wherein the entire law has been discussed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para No. 18 in Dipak Shubhashchandra Mehta's case (supra) has held as under: - 18. The Court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail, a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted, particularly, where the accused is ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of justice. The provisions of Cr.P.C. confer discretionary jurisdiction on Criminal Courts to grant bail to 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 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, 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 recognized, then it may lead to chaotic situation and would jeopardize the personal liberty of an individual. This Court, in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan- (2005) 2 SCC 42, o bserved that under the criminal laws of this country, a person accused of offences which are non-bailable, is liable to be detained in custody during the pendency of trial unless he is enlarged on bail in accordance with law. Such detention cannot be questioned as being violative of Article 21 of the Constitution, since t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of Corruption Act have been levelled. However, if the petitioners are allowed to be kept in judicial custody for indefinite period then Article 21 of the Constitution is violated. It is the fundamental right of every person in judicial custody for speedy trial. In the facts of the present case, it is to be seen whether keeping the petitioners in custody is justified specially when some of the persons who have been nominated during investigation are yet to be arrested and challan against them is to be presented on their joining investigation. 13. In view of this, I am of the view that petitioners are entitled to grant of bail pending trial on stringent conditions in order to allay the apprehension of the investigating agency. It is not necessary to canvass and go into the details of various other issues canvassed by learned counsel for the parties and the cases relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners in support of their contentions. I have not expressed any opinion on the merit of the case. 10. Investigation(s) stand concluded and challan stand presented in all the cases. Proceedings stand stayed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in quashing petition i.e. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
