2024 (9) TMI 1732 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of regular bail - forgery cheating criminal conspiracy and evidence tampering - reasonable or prima facie grounds to believe the petitioner s involvement in the alleged offences - registration of earlier FIR - No adversarial circumstances in status report - prolonged incarceration and trial to take time - grounds of parity - No apprehension by state authorities that petitioner may flee away or thwart cause of justice. Registration of earlier FIR - HELD THAT - This Court is of the considered view that mere registration of other FIRs or pendency of another matter cannot by itself be made the basis for continuing the detention endlessly or for prolonging the incarceration of the petitioner. Denial of bail merely due to the registration of other FIRs-matters shall certainly amount to not only curtailing and depriving the personal liberty of the petitioner enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India but shall also amount to prolonging the custody on basis of previously registered FIRs which are still accusations and are yet to be examined tested and proved during trial - in the instant case once the State Authorities have not pointed out any adverse eventuality in the Status Report in relation to earlier FIRs-matters then the plea for bail deserves to be accepted in peculiar facts herein. No adversarial circumstances in status report - HELD THAT - Claim for bail needs to be accepted for the reason that the State Authorities have not pointed out any other adversarial circumstances i.e. either by way of expressing any apprehension that the petitioner will flee away or may tamper with the evidence or cause any inducement or threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case. In the absence of any such adversarial circumstances having been pointed out by the State Authorities the claim for bail carries weight and the same is accordingly accepted. Bail - prolonged incarceration and trial to take time - Article 21 of the Constitution - HELD THAT - Since the bail petitioner herein has suffered incarceration for about six months now and even the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time therefore this Court is of the considered view that further detention of petitioner shall certainly amount to implicating the petitioner on mere accusation or conjectures at this stage. The action of the State Authorities is dehors the object of bail which is neither punitive nor preventative. Prolonging imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content which certainly amounts to depriving or curtailing the personal liberty of the petitioner enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Parity - Co-accused released on bail - HELD THAT - The State Authorities have not disputed the fact that other co-accused namely Suresh Chander Prakash Veer Chauhan Sohan Lal and Damandeep Singh have been enlarged on bail who as per Status Reports were alleged to have acted as agents of the main accused Parikshit Azad whereas once the petitioner has neither been named in the complaint nor any substantial material is borne out from the material on record which are yet to be tested examined and proved during the trial therefore in these circumstances the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail. No apprehension by state authorities that petitioner may flee away or thwart cause of justice - HELD THAT - The Status Report does not indicate that the release of the petitioner will thwart the cause of justice and no apprehension expressing any possibility of the petitioner either fleeing away or cause any inducement threat to any witness or persons acquainted with facts of case in any manner. However this Court still imposes the following stringent conditions against the bail petitioner. Conclusion - Taking into account the entirety of facts and circumstances and the material on record as borne out from the Status Report and the stand of the petitioner vis- -vis the prosecution story and other factors i.e. that the petitioner is in custody for last six months; and prolongation of detention shall certainly violates personal liberty; and further detention shall defeat the principle of Bail is a Rule and Jail is an Exception ; and once no reasonable grounds exists against the bail petitioner even as per the Status Report is running a medicine whole sale business having substantial transaction of more than Rupees Two Crores during 2020-2024 vis- -vis the accusation of having received a sum of Rs. 13, 72, 236/- approx. and when the veracity of such accusation is yet to be tested examined and proved during the trial in accordance with law; and the fact that the Investigation is complete; and the Challan-Final Police Report has been filed before the competent Court; and nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner therefore this Court is of the considered view that any further detention or prolongation thereof shall certainly amount to pre-trial incarceration by way of punishment on the basis of mere accusation which are yet to be proved shall amount to incarcerating the petitioner on the basis of mere surmises-allegations. In these circumstances the petitioner at this stage is entitled to be enlarged on bail. The State Authorities are directed to release the petitioner on bail subject to fulfilment of conditions imposed - bail application allowed.

Summary

The core legal questions considered by the Court in this bail petition are:

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), considering the nature and gravity of the offences alleged under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) including forgery, cheating, criminal conspiracy, and evidence tampering.

2. Whether the material on record and the Status Report filed by the State disclose reasonable or prima facie grounds to believe the petitioner's involvement in the alleged offences.

3. The relevance and impact of the petitioner's past criminal antecedents and other FIRs on the grant of bail in the present case.

4. The applicability of the broad legal principles and precedents governing grant of bail, including the presumption of innocence, the nature of the offences, and the rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

5. The effect of prolonged pre-trial incarceration on the petitioner's personal liberty and the right to a speedy trial.

6. Whether parity with co-accused persons already granted bail should influence the decision on the petitioner's bail application.

7. The presence or absence of any adversarial circumstances such as risk of flight, tampering with evidence, or influencing witnesses that would weigh against grant of bail.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement to Bail under BNSS and IPC offences:

The Court examined the statutory framework under Section 483 of BNSS and the relevant IPC provisions invoked against the petitioner, namely Sections 419 (cheating by personation), 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), 465, 467, 468, 469, 471 (various forgery offences), 120-B (criminal conspiracy), and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence or giving false information).

The Court noted the gravity of these offences, which attract significant punishments including life imprisonment and extended terms of imprisonment. However, the Court emphasized that the nature of the crime is only one of the factors to be considered in bail applications, as reiterated in various Supreme Court precedents.

The Court relied on precedents such as Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, and Ansar Ahmad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which lay down broad parameters for bail consideration, including the nature and severity of the offence, the prima facie satisfaction regarding the charge, potential for tampering with evidence, likelihood of absconding, and other relevant circumstances.

The Court also highlighted that bail is a rule and jail is an exception, and that pre-trial incarceration should not be punitive.

2. Material on Record and Prima Facie Grounds:

The Status Report disclosed that the FIR originated from a complaint alleging forgery of appointment letters purportedly issued on an outsource basis by forging signatures of a government official. The main accused, Parikshit Azad, was arrested based on evidence that he duped unemployed youth by promising jobs through fabricated documents.

The petitioner, however, was not named in the original complaint and was alleged to have duped 12 persons by collecting Rs. 13,72,236/- as fees and training expenses through intermediaries. The petitioner runs a wholesale medicine business with bank transactions amounting to over Rs. 2.41 crores from 2020 to 2024, which the Court found inconsistent with the allegation of duping for a comparatively small sum.

Statements of three alleged victims denied giving any amount to the petitioner, while the remaining nine persons' statements raised questions about whether payments were made to the petitioner or his agents, which were yet to be tested in trial.

The Court found no material prima facie evidence at this stage to connect the petitioner directly with forgery or cheating by personation, nor to establish criminal conspiracy or tampering with evidence as alleged.

3. Effect of Past Criminal Antecedents and Other FIRs:

The State opposed bail citing two earlier FIRs against the petitioner. The Court referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Prem Prakash v. Union of India, which clarified that mere pendency of other FIRs or criminal antecedents cannot be a ground for denying bail indefinitely unless the accused misuses bail or obstructs justice.

In the instant case, the petitioner was already enlarged on bail in one FIR, and the other FIR had a cancellation report pending. No adverse conduct was reported regarding the petitioner's bail conditions in other cases. Thus, the Court held that past FIRs or antecedents alone cannot justify continued detention here.

4. Principles of Bail and Article 21 Rights:

The Court extensively reviewed the principles governing bail, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. It relied on judgments such as Guddan alias Roop Narayan v. State of Rajasthan, Sandeep Jain v. NCT Delhi, Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, and Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, which underscore that bail is not to be withheld as punishment and that prolonged pre-trial incarceration violates fundamental rights.

The Court noted that the petitioner had been in custody for over six months, the investigation was complete, and the final police report had been filed, but the trial was yet to commence and would likely take considerable time. Further detention would amount to punitive incarceration based on untested allegations.

The Court also observed that conditions for bail should not be so onerous as to amount to denial of bail, and that the right to a speedy trial is integral to the right to liberty.

5. Parity with Co-accused:

The petitioner's counsel argued for parity since several co-accused had been granted bail. The State did not dispute this fact. The Court found that the co-accused were alleged to be agents of the main accused, while the petitioner was not named in the complaint and no substantial material implicated him at this stage.

Accordingly, the Court held that parity warranted granting bail to the petitioner as well.

6. Absence of Adversarial Circumstances:

The Status Report did not indicate any apprehension that the petitioner would flee, tamper with evidence, or influence witnesses. The Court found no material to suggest that the petitioner's release would thwart the course of justice.

Nonetheless, the Court imposed stringent conditions to safeguard the trial process, including personal bond, disclosure of contact information, prohibition on leaving the country without permission, and prohibition on tampering with witnesses or evidence.

Conclusions:

The Court concluded that no reasonable or prima facie grounds existed at this stage to deny bail to the petitioner. The allegations were yet to be tested and proved, and the prolonged detention would violate the petitioner's fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21. The petitioner's business transactions and the denial by some alleged victims undermined the prosecution's case. The absence of any adverse conduct or risk of flight further supported bail.

The Court ordered release on bail subject to conditions, emphasizing that the observations made were not findings on merits but procedural directions to ensure a fair trial.

Significant Holdings:

"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."

"Bail is the rule and jail is the exception."

"Denial of bail merely due to the registration of other FIRs-matters shall certainly amount to not only curtailing and depriving the personal liberty of the petitioner enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India but shall also amount to prolonging the custody on basis of previously registered FIRs which are still accusations and are yet to be examined, tested and proved during trial."

"Prolonging imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson."

"Where the State Authorities have failed to ensure speedy trial for last six months and considerable time is yet to be taken for completion of trial, then the petitioner deserves to be released on bail."

"No reasonable grounds exist against the bail petitioner, even as per the Status Report, and the veracity of such accusation is yet to be tested, examined and proved during the trial."

"The observations made in this judgment shall not be construed as an indicative of findings, for or against either of the parties herein, for the purpose of investigation or trial, which shall proceed independently, in accordance with law."