Tag: #Bail

–Report by Himanshu Sahu

FACTS

A complaint was made on 03.09.2020 by the mother of a 24-year-old woman who went to HDFC Bank in Noida but did not return home. She suspected her daughter had been kidnapped. The father later reported that the kidnapper demanded a ransom of Rs. 40 lacs and threatened to kill the daughter.

The victim was found on 04.09.2020, and two individuals, Simpal Srivastav and her boyfriend Shah Alam, were arrested. The petitioner, Simpal Srivastav, has applied for regular bail after being in custody for three years.

PETITIONER’S CONTENTION

The petitioner\’s counsel argues that the petitioner, a young woman of around 23 years with a clean record, has been in custody for three years and should be granted bail. They reference the proviso to Section 437(1)(i) of the CrPC, stating that the provision barring bail for offenses punishable with death or life imprisonment is exempted for women undertrials. Additionally, they point out that the FIR was registered several hours after the alleged ransom messages and calls were received, raising doubts about the prosecution\’s version of events.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION

Per contra, the learned APP submits that the petitioner has committed a serious offence by kidnapping the victim for ransom, which is punishable with life imprisonment. He, therefore, urges that the petitioner is not entitled to grant of bail and the application ought to be dismissed. The court acknowledges that the seriousness of an offense alone is not sufficient grounds for denying bail to an undertrial. Bail can only be denied if there is a possibility of the accused absconding, tampering with evidence, or threatening witnesses. The jurisdiction of the Magistrate in granting bail is regulated by the punishment prescribed for the offenCS, while the High Court and Court of Session have broader powers. In this case, the petitioner, a young woman, has been in custody for almost three years, and there is no need for further recovery or prolonged imprisonment. The trial is expected to be lengthy, but the purpose of imprisonment should not be to merely teach the accused a lesson. The petitioner is not a habitual offender and is entitled to the benefit of the first proviso to Section 437(1) of the CrPC.

JUDGMENT

The court, without delving into the merits of the case, concludes that the petitioner has presented sufficient grounds for granting bail. Therefore, the petition is allowed, and the petitioner is granted bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 20,000/- and one surety bond of the same amount, subject to the satisfaction of the Trial Court or the concerned Magistrate.

CASE NAME: SIMPAL SRIVASTAV Vs. STATE

-Report by Sakshi Tanwar

This is the second application under Section 439 read with Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking regular bail in case FIR No. 166/2015, dated 16.11.2015, recorded at P.S. Crime Branch under Sections 3 and 9 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923. The initial application filed on behalf of the current applicant was rejected as withdrawn by a coordinate bench of this Court on February 31, 2018, with an instruction to the learned trial Court to expedite the trial.

FACTS

P.S. Crime Branch obtained classified information on alleged anti-national acts supported by Pakistan-based intelligence operatives. The operation in question was handled by an Indian. Information about the deployment of the Indian Army and the Border Security Force (“BSF”) in Jammu and Kashmir and passed it on to people across the border, threatening national security. The mobile phone numbers involved were intercepted, and the names of two people engaged – Kafaitullah Khan and Abdul Rasheed surfaced. Kafaitullah Khan lived in Rajouri and Abdul Rasheed served in the BSF. It was found that Abdul Rasheed gave classified material to Kafaitullah Khan in exchange for money, who then gave it to Pakistan intelligence operatives.  

Kafaitullah Khan came across his close friend Mohammad Saber, i.e., the present applicant, who was a primary school teacher. In confidence, Kafaitullah Khan told the applicant about his meeting with the aforesaid Pakistan intelligence officer and the task assigned to him. He agreed to the task by taking some money. Kafaitullah Khan got in touch with an ex-serviceman, Munawar, through the present applicant. Farid Khan had passed on some documents to Munawar, which were then passed on to Faizal-ur-Rehman through the present applicant. Mobile phones were recovered from Kafaitullah Khan, Abdul Rasheed, Munawar Ahmed Mir, Farid Khan and the present applicant. The Call Detail Records showed that the accused were in touch. Bank account details of all the accused persons were obtained from the concerned banksand it was found that Rs. 10,000/- were deposited in the account of the applicant. 

The found documents pertaining to the Indian Army were forwarded to the appropriate authorities for examination. It was discovered that the aforementioned documents were classified in nature. Following the completion of the investigation, the first chargesheet in the current case against Abdul Rasheed Khan, Munawar Ahmed Mir, Farid Ahmed, Kafaitullah Khan, and the present application was filed on February 23, 2016.

APPEALANT’S SIDE

The applicant, according to learned counsel acting on his behalf, was detained on December 5, 2015, and has been in judicial detention for more than 7 years. It was also claimed that he had been imprisoned for more than half the maximum time permitted for the crimes he was accused of committing. As a result, the petitioner is eligible to be released on bail under Section 436A of the CrPC. It was further submitted that the applicant was not named in the FIR and the allegations against him are solely on the basis of the disclosure of Kafaitullah Khan and Abdul Rasheed. Learned counsel for the application testified that no incriminating material had been obtained from the applicant’s possession or from his domicile. Furthermore, no incriminating evidence was discovered on his laptop or camera. It was submitted that the prosecution has not been able to connect the Rs. 10,000/- transferred to the bank account of the applicant with any of the allegations made against him. Learned counsel further submitted that there is no evidence on record which shows that the data alleged to be transmitted was passed on by the applicant.

JUDGEMENT

In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, the applicant is admitted to bail upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- along with two sureties of the like amount, one of which should be a relative of the applicant, to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/Link Court, further subject to some conditions.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3LaNDh3

-Report by Harshit Gupta

Anticipatory bail was granted to all accused in the case of Mahmood Bava V. Central Bureau of Investigation decided on 20-03-2023. 

FACTS:

This case involves many accused, who were booked under sections 420, 466, 467 471 read with section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In this case, M/s. NaftoGaz India Pvt Ltd. secured a loan from a consortium of banks led by SBI. After 27.07.2012 the account of the bank was showing signs of sickness and on 22.11.2012, the account was classified as NPA, and on 03.02.2015, the account was declared fraudulent account. One property as security was found to be in litigation and another property was overvalued. Thereafter, the Loan Company lodged the FIR on 26.06.2019, and none of the accused was taken into custody by CBI. It seemed to the court that each accused cooperated in the investigation and the final report was filed by CBI on 31.12.2021, and after this, special courts issued summons for the appearance of all accused in the court on 07.03.2022. Therefore, apprehending arrest, the appellants moved to the special court with the application of Anticipatory Bail, which was rejected by the said Court and was confirmed by the High Court of Allahabad. Therefore, the Appellants approached Supreme Court. 

CONTENTIONS:

Respondent:

Accused no. 2, Shri Mahdoom Bava, is stated to be the promoter/director of the Company and he is alleged to be the kingpin. Accused no. 3, Shri Deepak Gupta is a third party who has allegedly given his personal guarantee. According to the prosecution, he claimed title to the property based on fictitious documents and he sold away some proportions of his property before the mortgage. Accused No. 10 was alleged to have created bogus bills and fake lorry receipts, in connivance with accused No. 2, to enable the Company to have the bills discounted. Accused 14 namely Yatish Sharma was alleged to have operated the account of M/s Shri Radhey Traders. The respondent also contended that the prime accused, no. 2, Mahdoom Bava, is also involved in 11 other cases.

JUDGEMENT:

In this, the judgement was delivered by Justice V. Rama Subramanian by granting SLP, as the criminal appeal arose from the SLPs. The judgement was so delivered and granted anticipatory bail to the accused on the basis that they cooperated through the investigation, and they would do so in future if they were summoned during the trial. The prayer of anticipatory bail was opposed vehemently by the respondent. But the court was of the view that there were three factors which tilted the balance in the favour of the accused. Factor one was that the custody of all accused was not required during the investigation, therefore, it is now hard to digest that custody is now required at this stage. Factor two is that in the case of Shree Deepak Gupta, CBI took the stand before the special court that the presence of the accused during the investigation is not required but it will surely need during the trial. Therefore, the Apex Court considered this as the only presence of all accused is required not the custody during the trial to face the trial. Factor three the Apex Court considered is that the complaint is borne out of records and the primary focus is on documentary evidence, so the court did not understand the arrest of all accused during this time as the offence was committed a decade ago. In the respondent’s contention of 11 cases, appeal arouse from 3 cases and 7 were of 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The eighth case is filed by an income tax officer for non-payment of the TDS amount. In this case, anticipatory bail was granted by the Court to all accused based on the findings of the Court. 

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3Ksujg6

-Report by Harshit Yadav

In this case, four individuals were accused of various offences related to a fraudulent loan obtained by a company called M/s NaftoGaz India Pvt. Ltd. from a consortium of banks led by the State Bank of India. The accused individuals had applied for anticipatory bail, which was rejected by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The Supreme Court heard the appeals challenging the rejection of anticipatory bail and made its decision based on various factors. The main point being made by the Hon’ble supreme court is that there were certain factors that favoured the grant of anticipatory bail to the accused individuals, despite the serious nature of the allegations against them.

FACTS:

The case involves an FIR registered by Corporation Bank alleging offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120B IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The accused, namely Shri Mahdoom Bava, Shri Deepak Gupta, Shri Akash Gupta, and Shri Yatish Sharma have filed appeals challenging the orders of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad rejecting their applications for anticipatory bail. The accusations involve the alleged creation of a fraudulent account by M/s NaftoGaz India Pvt. Ltd., which secured certain credit facilities from a consortium of banks led by the State Bank of India. The prosecution alleges that the Company connived and conspired with advocates and valuers hired by the consortium of banks, and therefore the promoters/directors of the Company, the guarantors as well as those involved in the sanction of the loan were guilty of the offences complained. The Supreme Court granted anticipatory bail to the accused based on three factors: (i) CBI did not require the custodial interrogation of the accused during the period of investigation from 29.06.2019 (date of filing of FIR) till 31.12.2021 (date of filing of the final report), (ii) CBI only required the presence of the accused before the Trial Court to face trial, and (iii) all transactions out of which the complaint had arisen, seem to have taken place during the period 2009-2010 to 2012-13.

ISSUES RAISED:

1. Whether the accused persons are entitled to anticipatory bail in the light of serious allegations levelled against them in the FIR filed by the Corporation Bank, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120B IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. Whether the custodial interrogation of the appellants is required, given that the CBI did not require their custodial interrogation during the investigation period, and whether the custody of the appellants is necessary at this stage.
3. Whether the presence of the accused is required before the trial court for trial or not, and whether opposing the anticipatory bail request at this stage is justified in light of the CBI’s stand that only the presence of the accused before the Trial Court is required.
4. Whether the transactions in question took place during the period 2009-2010 to 2012-2013, and whether the accused should be granted anticipatory bail in the absence of any evidence of their involvement in the alleged fraud.

CONTENTIONS:

The appellants, in this case, have challenged the order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, which rejected their application for anticipatory bail. The appellants have argued that they are entitled to anticipatory bail despite the serious allegations levelled against them in the FIR filed by the Corporation Bank. They have contended that the CBI did not require their custodial interrogation during the investigation period, and therefore, their custody is not necessary at this stage. The appellants have also argued that the CBI only required their presence before the trial court for trial, and opposing their anticipatory bail request at this stage is not justified.

On the other hand, the respondents have opposed the appellants’ request for anticipatory bail, arguing that the allegations against them are serious in nature, and their custodial interrogation is necessary to unearth the truth. The respondents have argued that the appellants cannot be granted anticipatory bail merely because the CBI did not require their custody during the investigation period. They have also contended that the presence of the accused before the trial court is not enough, and their custody is necessary to ensure that they do not tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses.

JUDGEMENT:

In this case, several accused individuals have appealed against the rejection of their applications for anticipatory bail by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The First Information Report in the case was registered on 29.06.2019 at the instance of the Corporation Bank, for alleged offences under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The allegations involved a company securing credit facilities from a consortium of banks and committing fraud, with the accused including the company’s promoters/directors, guarantors, and those involved in sanctioning the loan. The CBI completed its investigation and filed a final report on 31.12.2021, with the Special Court issuing a summons for the appearance of the accused on 07.03.2022. The appellants sought anticipatory bail, which was rejected by the Special Court and confirmed by the High Court. However, the Supreme Court found that the CBI did not require the custodial interrogation of the appellants during the investigation period and that the CBI only wanted the presence of the accused before the Trial Court to face trial, which may not be proper grounds to oppose anticipatory bail at this stage. Therefore, the Supreme Court granted anticipatory bail to the appellants.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3yX4kad

-Report by Atharva Dixit

The judgment of SANDEEP TILWANI Versus STATE OF NCT, by the High Court of Delhi relates to a petition filed by Sandeep Tilwani, the director of J Sai Kripa Import & Export Co. Ltd., seeking regular bail in case FIR No. 220/20 Under Section 420/406/467/468/471/474/120-B IPC registered at Police Station E.O.W. The complaint was filed by Ms. Upma Sharma who is one of the directors of the company “Cargomasters Logistics Pvt. Ltd.”, engaged in the business of freight forwarding and logistics services (International transportation) alleging that the respondent company’s payment for logistical support was not made by the petitioner and when bill of ladings (BLs) was not issued, the petitioner fraudulently sent fake Telegraphic Transfers (TTs) to give the impression that payment from Thai bank has been requested and tricked the respondent in sending the BLs and resulting in clearance for the transported goods without payment being made to the logistics co.

FACTS:

The complainant alleged that in 2018, petitioner assigned 74 bookings of 640 rice containers to the complainant company for freight services (transportation) amounting approximately to the amount of Rs. 11,20,00,000/-. for gaining the confidence of the complainant, petitioner made initial payments to the complainant and he stopped the payment after that the complainant held the release of remaining Bill of Ladings (BLs). The petitioner induced the complainant to release the remaining BLs and to assure her, he sent copies of two Telegraphictransfers (TTs) as proof of payment and promised that he was going to transfer the payment through these TTs from Thailand. The complainant believing these (TTs) to be true released 3 remaining BLs. But neither the due payment nor the payment against these 3 BLs, was transferred by the petitioner. Later on, the complainant came to know that the said (TTs) were never deposited in the concerned bank in Thailand.

PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS:

It was submitted by the petitioner that a civil dispute is beingconverted into a criminal case in order to recover the money in a commercial transaction. He further submitted that the Petitioner was only a mediator between the seller and the buyer and he is being implicated in a ploy to extort money from the petitioner. He further submitted that no efforts have been made to arrest the co-accused persons and the investigation is now complete and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody. He also alleged that the respondent concealed material facts and gave false information while registering the FIR.

RESPONDANT’S CONTENTIONS:

The respondent strongly opposed the bail plea by stating that the petitioner is a habitual offender and his passport has been seized by the Thai court in a similar matter. He has also changed his identity and has got four passports issued. In order to gain the confidence of the complainant the petitioner made initial payments to the complainant and thereafter stopped the payment for freight services. He also induced the complainant to release the BLs by showing forged TTs as proof of payment and believing them to be true, the complainant released the BLs and suffered a huge loss. 

JUDGMENT:

Rajnish Bhatnagar, J. while dismissing the bail application held that “the petitioner is a habitual offender having similar cases registered against him in the court of Thailand and he has even got issued 4 passports by changing his identity. So, when such is the position, the petitioner is a flight risk and the allegations against him are severe in nature who has cheated the complainant in a planned manner to the tune of more thanrupees Six Crores. The petitioner has even got 3 Bill of Ladings (BLs) released from the complainant and in order to gain the confidence of the complainant, he sent copies of two Telegraphic Transfers (TTs) as proof of payment and the complainant believing these two TTs to be true released 3 Bill of Ladings (BLs) but neither the due payment nor the payment against these 3 Bill of Ladings (BLs) was transferred by the petitioner and later on it was revealed during the investigation that the TTs were never deposited by the petitioner in the concerned bank at Thailand and the petitioner succeeded in getting 3 Bill of Ladings (BLs) released by the complainant by sending fake TTs.”

READ FULL JUDGMENT: https://bit.ly/3T3X6KX

–Report by Tannu Dahiya

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh has granted bail to the petitioner in the case of Rohit vs State of Himachal Pradesh while hearing the same on 20th February, 2023.

Facts:

Here the petitioner is a 28 year old man who is a permanent resident of Village Palsawan, Post Office, Chanog, Tehsil . He had been in a relationship with the respondent for the past three years. A FIR has been filed by her stating that the petitioner has been living with her and they had sexual relations repeatedly. But He refuses to marry her and had sexual intercourse by making false promises. 

Petitioner’s contentions:

The petitioner has prayed for grant of bail against the FIR no. 33/23 filed on 6th January 2023. He’s been in custody since then. He pleaded that the girl has been maintaining the relationship for a very long time . He accepted that his parents are against their marriage due to their caste differences. But he claims that he never made false promises to her and she voluntarily made physical relations with him. He is a permanent resident of village Palswan and promises to abide by all the terms and conditions which may be imposed. 

Respondent’s contentions:

The learned additional advocate general opposed the plea for bail on the grounds that the petitioner has committed serious offence. The investigation is under process and 

He may try to mess with the evidence if he is granted bail. 

Judgement:

The single judge bench after hearing both the parties , pronounced the judgement that the girl is mature enough to take decision when she indulges herself in any unwanted relationship. Also she has been in a relationship for so long. It would not be just if the petitioner is kept in custody for an indeterminate period. The apprehension that he may mess with the evidence, can be taken care of by putting certain terms and conditions on him. Hence keeping in view all the facts, the petition is allowed and bail is granted. However it will be subject to certain conditions which are :

1.  He will appear before the court and investigation officer whenever required. 
2.  Will not threat or induce any person who is related to the facts of the case.
3. Will not mess with the evidences.
4. Will not repeat the offence.
5.  Will not act in a manner which will delay the trial in court.
6. Will not leave India without the permission of court

The Investigation agency can move for quashing this order if the above said points are violated. 

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3XMvsCL

Citation: Cr.MP(M) No.319 of 2023

–Report by Shreya Gupta

In the recent case of SURAJ MALIK Versus THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI, the bail was sought under section 439 of CrPC, 1973. The applicant was arrested under Sections 498A/306/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioner, in this case, is Suraj Malik and the respondent is the state govt. of NCT of Delhi.

FACTS:

Shefali Malik the deceased was admitted to the hospital on account of burn injuries by her neighbour. It was revealed to the police that she was married for less than 7 years to her husband who had a 4-year-old son from his previous marriage on account of which F.I.R. was registered. The statement the patient was taken in which she admitted that she burned herself because she did not want to live as her mother-in-law used to taunt her for dowry and harasses her. She also claimed that her husband used to abuse her and that her sister-in-law was innocent. The F.I.R. was filed under Sections 498/306/34 of the IPC was registered and an investigation was taken up.

PETIONER’S CONTENTIONS:

The advocate of the applicant stated that the statement given by the father of the deceased varied completely from the dying declaration of the deceased. He alleged that statement was given by the father only to add section 304B to the F.I.R. since earlier it was registered only under section 306 of the IPC. He stated that there was no abetment to suicide. He also added that the deceased in the hospital asked the applicant to stay with her. He stated that since the chargesheet is already filed there is no useful purpose in making him stay under custody. He supported his arguments with previous judgements of i. Ranjeet Singh v. State, 2005 (2) J.C.C. 905 ii. Kamal @ Kailash Joshi v. State, 2007 I.A.D. (Delhi) 31 iii. Nitin Kumar v. State, 2015 IVAD (Delhi) 109 iv. Deepak v. State, 120 (2005) D.L.T 146.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS:

The father of the deceased alleged that she was harassed and demanded a dowry. He alleged that the applicant and the mother-in-law burnt his daughter to death. He alleged that her daughter was asked for Rs. 25 lakhs out of which he already gave Rs. 10 lakhs in demand of it. He also alleged that her daughter was pregnant but they got her aborted because Suraj malik already had a son from his previous marriage. He also alleged that she was maltreated when she got pregnant for the second time. The advocate mentioned that it is stated in the dying declaration that she was harassed and abused by her husband and mother-in-law.

JUDGEMENT:

The court stated that “Perusal of the aforesaid dying declaration made by the deceased reflects that the deceased was not happy at her matrimonial home, more specifically, with her relationship with her mother-in-law, but at the same time the fact that she did not make any allegation with respect to demand of dowry made by the present applicant cannot be lost sight of.” The court further passed his application for bail provided with some terms and conditions and a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and a surety.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/40YO59g

Neutral Citation Number: 2023/DHC/001062

-Report by Sanya Luthra

The case Pawan Arora vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) deals with the petitioner being liable for keeping the substances for which he didn’t possess a suitable license which was considered unlawful and because of this the petitioner has been in custody since 4th August 2020 and Trial Court has also rejected the bail application and observed that the firm did not possess a such license which authorised them to sell those substances.

FACTS:

As a result of some secret information, a raid was conducted in the Jhuggis of Kamla Nehru Camp Kirti Nagar, New Delhi by the Narcotic Cell and because of that raid on the night of 17th and 18th June 2020 when the raid was conducted a huge amount of the consignment of psychotropic substance Tramadol, Nitrazepam based tablets and Codeine based syrups were recovered from the godown situated there. When police inquired about the same then Shravan Kumar (who was there at the time of the raid) revealed that the medicines of the godown belonged to the petitioner and his manager Chander Shekhar. With this an FIR was lodged regarding the same and Shravan Kumar was arrested at that time, later on, it was revealed that the petitioner and his manager had the office of the same substance, later on, the petitioner and his manager were also arrested, further, it was held that the license to sell and possess medicines was of Chander Shekhar. So now it is up to Delhi High Court to check the liability of the three people involved and also to grant bail or not.

PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS:

It was put forward by the petitioner that the authenticity of the secret information is doubtful and the petitioner also argued that the license to sell the following substance was there with the petitioner so he was lawful in selling those and it was also stated that these substances do not fall within Schedule I of the NDPS Act hence compliance to Chapter VII A of the NDPS Rules 1985 is not required. Instead, they fall under Schedule H-1 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. Schedule H-1 has been issued under Rules 65 and 97 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 and the said substances which have been recovered and have been attributed to the petitioner, fall under Sr.No.20 (Codeine), No.36 (Nitrazepam) and No.45 (Tramadol), so they were emphasizing that they possess a lawful license for everything and can’t be said to conduct unlawful activities.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS:

The learned counsel from the state argued that the FSL report which has arrived also proves that the substances they were carrying include substances which they were not supposed to be sold or possessed by anyone, that’s why they were having the unlawful substances and should be punished for the same, also the license which they were having was not eligible to possess such substances.

JUDGMENT:

The Delhi High Court held that at this stage when a trial has to be conducted and will take much time and 37 witnesses have to be examined and prima facie it does seem violation of license rules and not of illegal stocking and sale of substances, without a license, so the petitioner can be released on regular bail and therefore he is released on regular bail with the sum amount of 1,00,000 as bond and two sureties with certain conditions which are that he will not leave the country, will provide his all mobile numbers, permanent address, join the investigation and will appear before the court when called.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3DHbrX1

CITATION: 2023/DHC/000688

–Report by Hans Rathi

The High Court of Delhi recently held in the case of TARUN DUTT versus GOVERNMENT OF NCT, DELHI that undertrial prisoners cannot be detained in custody for an indefinite period. It stated that an undertrial accused cannot be made to spend the entire period of trial in custody especially when the trial is likely to take considerable time. The court reasoned that once the majority of the co-accused are out on Bail it cannot be argued that it is only the accused person against whom there is an apprehension that he will tamper with the evidence and influence the witnesses. The Hon’ble Mr Justice Amit Mahajan presided over the case.

Facts:

An FIR was registered on a complaint of Shri Matadeen Gora, who alleged to have been dishonestly induced on the pretext of receiving the insurance policy bonus amount and the insurance gratuity value on the lapsed insurance policies from the year 2013 till date. He claimed that a group of people had called him from different mobile numbers claiming to be senior officials from the insurance regulatory body. They induced him by stating that the unclaimed insurance amount can be released to the complainant. On the allurement, he deposited a sum of ₹ 80 lakhs and another sum of ₹ 39 lakhs at different times. The chargesheet has already been filed in the present case. It was found that most of the money was transferred to the accounts of accused persons including one main accused herein. In a disclosure statement made by one of the accused, the present applicant was arrested on 14.01.2021. The applicant had joined the other accused persons – Arvind and Sunil, as partners in a fake insurance bonus scam and has cheated innocent victims/persons on the pretext of receiving a huge insurance policy bonus. The applicant is alleged to be the main caller who induced the complainant and impersonated himself as Senior Director of Income Tax and MCA. The co-accused Sunil was admitted on bail by an order dated 30.05.2022 passed by the learned ASJ and the co-accused Arvind was granted bail by this Court by order dated 28.02.2022, whereas one co-accused person Ratnesh Chauhan is stated to be released on interim bail granted by the learned ASJ by order dated 28.04.2022. The present appeal is filed by the main accused still in custody under Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”), seeking regular bail in FIR No. 0012/2021 dated 08.01.2021 registered at Vasant Kunj. 

Petitioner’s Contentions 

Learned senior counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant was in the employment of the main accused and has been falsely implicated in the case. 13. He further submits that all the other four co-accused have been already enlarged on bail and despite that the applicant is languishing in jail and his application for grant of bail was dismissed by the Trial Court on an erroneous presumption that the applicant is likely to tinker with the ongoing investigation. In the present case, even though the FIR was registered way back in January 2021 and the chargesheet was filed long back, still even as per the prosecution there is a major part of the investigation which is still in progress. Therefore, the trial is not likely to proceed and will take a long period of time before it gets over. The Applicant is in custody for almost 2 years and has a family to look after, including a six-year-old daughter and an eleven months old son. 15. He further submits that when all the main accused persons have already been enlarged on bail, no purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in further incarceration and he is also entitled to bail on the ground of parity.

Respondent Contentions

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State opposes the bail application and submits that the gravity of the offense and the manner in which the accused persons are found to have cheated the complainant, disentitles the Applicant of any discretion.

Judgment

The court in the present case held that undertrial prisoners cannot be detained in custody for an indefinite period. The speedy trial in the present case does not seem a possibility. Keeping the applicant in further incarceration would cause deprivation of his right to legal defence. It further reasoned that once the majority of the co-accused are out on Bail it cannot be argued that it is only the applicant against whom there is an apprehension that he will tamper with the evidence and influence the witnesses. Therefore, the court directed the appellant to be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond for a sum of ₹50,000 with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court / Duty Metropolitan Magistrate, subject to some terms and conditions.

–Report by Anjali Pandey

Without commenting further on the merits of the case, keeping the facts and circumstances in mind and the fact that the trial is likely to take some time, I am satisfied that the applicant has made out a case for a grant of regular bail. In the event of there being any FIR/DD entry/ complaint lodged against the applicant, it would be open to the State to seek redressal by way of seeking cancellation of bail. It is also made clear that the observations made in the present case are only to consider the bail application and should not influence the outcome of the trial and not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

FACTS:

The FIR was registered on a complaint made by the father of the deceased, Shri Sarvesh Kumar, alleging that the son of the applicant, Sonu was married to the deceased, Neha, who committed suicide on 19.09.2021, due to harassment and torture, being caused by her husband, Sonu, and his family members, including the applicant, Ram Ashre. The applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased.

Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the accused, husband and the mother-in-law of the deceased who has been specifically named by the complainant are in judicial custody. He submits that no role has been alleged to the applicant and a vague allegation has been made that the entire family of the husband was responsible for the dowry death.

PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS:

Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the accused, husband and the mother-in-law of the deceased who has been specifically named by the complainant are in judicial custody. He submits that no role has been alleged to the applicant and a vague allegation has been made that the entire family of the husband was responsible for the dowry death.

He further submits that the learned Trial Court, by order dated 12.11.2021, has already granted pre-arrest bail to the brother-in-law of the deceased, specifically noting that the prime witness, Anisha, whose statement has been heavily relied upon by the prosecution, had only named the husband, Sonu, the mother-in-law, Maya Devi, and she had also specifically said in the statement that the deceased did not take anyone else’s name.

JUDGMENT:

Without commenting further on the merits of the case, keeping the facts and circumstances in mind and the fact that the trial is likely to take some time, I am satisfied that the applicant has made out a case for a grant of regular bail.

The applicant is, therefore, directed to be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond for a sum of ₹50,000/- (rupees Fifty thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court / Duty Metropolitan Magistrate on the following conditions:a) He shall under no circumstance leave Delhi without informing the concerned IO / SHO.b) He shall not take adjournment and attend the Trial Court proceedings on every date.c) He shall join and cooperate in further investigation.d) The applicant shall not, in any manner, try to contact any of the witnesses.e) He shall provide his mobile number to the investigating officer (IO) concerned/SHO concerned at the time of release which shall be kept in always working conditions.

In the event of there being any FIR/DD entry/ complaint lodged against the applicant, it would be open to the State to seek redressal by way of seeking cancellation of bail.