2020 (5) TMI 737 - HC - Money Laundering

Seeking cancellation of bail granted - accused/respondent is alleged to have played a major role in fixing the matches - HELD THAT - While it is no doubt correct that cancellation of bail is no longer limited to the occurrence of supervening circumstances and in the absence of any such supervening circumstances the court dealing with an application for cancellation of bail is empowered to consider the soundness of the bail order it should not act capriciously and without good reason to cancel the bail once granted as liberty of an individual is at stake. The State has every right to be aggrieved with the grant of bail to the accused particularly when much effort has gone into his production before the court of law. All this seems to be a factor that tilts this case to a degree in favour of the State. The first warrant is stated to have been issued in the year 2004 against the present respondent/accused. 21 days before the FIR was registered the respondent/accused who was an Indian Passport holder and an Indian citizen at that time left for the U.K.. The extradition process took a long time and then the respondent/accused could be extradited only on an assurance given by the Government as to the environment in which the respondent/accused would be detained in Tihar Jail. One cannot therefore doubt the genuineness of the concern of the State that releasing the respondent/accused on bail would lead to a situation where he is able to distance himself and jeopardise trial. The State has come before this Court for seeking cancellation of bail immediately upon the grant of bail and therefore there has been no occasion for a disclosure through action or words that the respondent/accused has/intends to thwart the process of justice or prevent fair trial. Liberty being precious to human life bail once granted ought not to be lightly cancelled. The existence of supervening circumstances or other circumstances as listed hereinabove in their absence must be strictly ascertained by the court before it cancels the bail already granted. The present case is not one such case where these circumstances exist as discussed above. The State has not succeeded in making out a case for cancellation of bail of the respondent/accused. The present petition for cancellation of bail is accordingly dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the bail granted to the respondent/accused should be canceled.
2. Consideration of the gravity and seriousness of the allegations.
3. Evaluation of the respondent/accused's flight risk.
4. Applicability of Covid-19 guidelines for the release of under-trial prisoners.
5. Examination of the factors considered by the learned ASJ in granting bail.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the bail granted to the respondent/accused should be canceled:
The State petitioned for the cancellation of bail granted to the respondent/accused, arguing that the learned ASJ failed to appreciate the gravity and seriousness of the allegations against the accused/respondent. The State contended that the accused had been evading investigations for years and was only secured after long-drawn extradition proceedings, making him a high flight risk.

2. Consideration of the gravity and seriousness of the allegations:
The State highlighted the respondent/accused's major role in fixing cricket matches, alleging he was the main link between players and a betting syndicate, profiting from the match fixings. The State relied on statements made by Hansie Cronje and Hamid Cassim before the Kings Commission, call detail analysis, and disclosures made by co-accused to establish the respondent/accused's involvement in the conspiracy.

3. Evaluation of the respondent/accused's flight risk:
The State argued that the respondent/accused, having left India before the FIR was registered and obtaining British citizenship, posed a high flight risk. The learned ASG emphasized that the respondent/accused's wealth and influence could be used to threaten or cajole witnesses, hampering a fair trial. The respondent/accused's counsel countered that there was no evidence suggesting the accused was likely to abscond during the complete lockdown with no mode of transport operational.

4. Applicability of Covid-19 guidelines for the release of under-trial prisoners:
The State argued that the Covid-19 guidelines for the release of under-trial prisoners were not applicable to the respondent/accused, a foreign national who had not spent three months in jail, and whose case was being investigated by the Crime Branch. The respondent/accused's counsel argued that the guidelines applied to all under-trials, irrespective of nationality, and the accused should not be barred from seeking this benefit.

5. Examination of the factors considered by the learned ASJ in granting bail:
The learned ASG contended that the learned ASJ considered irrelevant factors, such as the Covid-19 guidelines, while overlooking relevant factors, such as the accused's flight risk and the ongoing investigation. The ASG relied on several Supreme Court judgments to argue that bail could be canceled even in the absence of supervening factors if the court granting bail ignored relevant material or considered irrelevant material.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that while the State's concerns were genuine, the respondent/accused had not had an opportunity to interfere with the trial or abscond, as the bail was granted recently. The court emphasized that liberty should not be lightly canceled and found no supervening circumstances justifying the cancellation of bail. The court directed the respondent/accused to keep a mobile phone operational at all times and report to the IO/SHO daily, ensuring compliance with the bail conditions. The petition for cancellation of bail was dismissed, and the trial court was instructed to expedite the trial.

← Previous Next →