2011 (11) TMI 537 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the appellants be released on bail on their executing a bond with two solvent sureties each in a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs to the satisfaction of the Special Judge CBI New Delhi?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Denial of bail to the accused-appellants.
2. Allegations and charges against the accused.
3. Arguments by the appellants' counsel.
4. Arguments by the Additional Solicitor General.
5. Legal principles and precedents regarding bail.
6. Court's analysis and decision on granting bail.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Denial of Bail to the Accused-Appellants:
The appeals were directed against the common judgment and order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi dated 23rd May 2011, which refused to grant bail to the accused-appellants. The Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi, had earlier rejected their bail applications on 20.04.2011.

2. Allegations and Charges Against the Accused:
The accused were charged with serious economic offences involving criminal conspiracy, cheating, forgery, and corruption, resulting in a significant loss to the State exchequer. Specific allegations included manipulation of the first-come-first-served procedure for UAS Licences, fraudulent applications, and concealment of information to obtain licences.

3. Arguments by the Appellants' Counsel:
- Shri Ram Jethmalani argued that the denial of bail violated the principle that "grant of bail is the rule and its denial is the exception." He emphasized the appellants' cooperation with the investigation and the lack of any threat of absconding or tampering with witnesses. He also contended that the trial judge's power was limited to asking for a bond under Section 88 Cr.P.C., not sending the accused to judicial custody.
- Shri Mukul Rohatgi supplemented by arguing that the gravity of the offence should be determined by the maximum sentence prescribed by the statute, not the amount involved in the alleged scam.
- Shri Ashok H. Desai emphasized the right to bail unless there was a clear necessity for deprivation of liberty, highlighting the preventive nature of custody.
- Shri Soli J. Sorabjee criticized the High Court's reasoning that non-arrest during the investigation indicated the accused's influence, arguing that it would lead to denial of bail in every case.

4. Arguments by the Additional Solicitor General:
- Shri Haren P. Raval argued that the offences posed a threat to the economic fabric of the country and that public interest should outweigh personal liberty. He emphasized the need for consistency with previous orders denying bail to co-accused and highlighted the potential threat to witnesses.

5. Legal Principles and Precedents Regarding Bail:
The judgment discussed several legal principles and precedents:
- Bail is the rule, and jail is the exception.
- The seriousness of the charge and the severity of the punishment are relevant factors.
- The likelihood of the accused tampering with witnesses or absconding is crucial.
- Pre-trial detention should not be punitive and must be justified by necessity.
- The right to a speedy trial is fundamental, and prolonged pre-trial detention violates Article 21 of the Constitution.

6. Court's Analysis and Decision on Granting Bail:
- The Court noted that the appellants had cooperated with the investigation and there was no material evidence suggesting they would tamper with witnesses.
- The seriousness of the charge alone was not sufficient to deny bail.
- The trial was expected to take a considerable time, and prolonged detention would violate the appellants' right to a speedy trial.
- The Court concluded that the appellants should be granted bail on stringent conditions to address the CBI's concerns.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court granted bail to the appellants, emphasizing the principles of personal liberty and the right to a speedy trial. The appellants were required to execute a bond with two solvent sureties, each in a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs, and adhere to specific conditions to ensure their presence during the trial and prevent any tampering with witnesses.