Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2016 (2) TMI 1267

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... bject to further condition that the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts to the court or to any other authority and subject to further condition that the applicant shall remain present before the court on the date fixed for hearing of the case - Application disposed off. - Bail Appln. 1753/2015 & Crl.M.A.18075/2015 - - - Dated:- 16-2-2016 - Siddharth Mridul, J. Mr. N. Hariharan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Deepak Gandhi, Mr. Sahil Paul, Mr. Amartya Kanjilal and Mr. Siddharth S. Yadav, Advocates For The Petitioner. Ms. Radhika Kolluru, APP with SI Sanjiv Verma, EOW Mr. Jayant K. Sud, Advocate with Mr. Honey Khanna, Advocate for the Complainant For The Respondent. ORDER Mr Siddharth Mridul, 1. The present is an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) on behalf of the applicant Ashok Kumar seeking regular bail in FIR No.48/2015, under Sections 403/409/417/418/420/421/477/120-B IPC, registered at Police Station-EOW Cell. 2. At the outset, it is noticed tha .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t the trial but in such cases, necessity is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should e punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty save in the most extraordinary circumstances. 23. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any 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 un-convicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 46. We are conscious of the fact that the accused are charged with economic offences of huge magnitude. We are also conscious of t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... (supra) this Court observed as follows :- 7. A plain reading of the above decision makes it crystal clear that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial. It is further observed that the object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative and that deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment unless it is required to ensure that the accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The Supreme Court further observed that when a person is punished by denial of bail in respect of any matter upon which he has not been convicted it would be contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution except in cases where there is reason to believe that he will tamper with the witnesses. To encapsulate, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that pre- conviction detention should not be resorted to except in cases of necessity to secure attendance at the trial or upon material that the accused will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty. 8. In the present case there is no gainsaying the fact that the applicant is charged of an economic offence of some magnitude. However, the fact that the investigatin .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ned senior counsel for the petitioners that although the Apex Court order does not find the mention of the word 409 IPC or the factum of life imprisonment which could be imposed for the said offence in the order, but it was cognizant of the fact that the all co-accused persons in the bail applications which were under its consideration were charged so. In addition to this, while dealing with the facts of the case in the batch of applications of Sanjay Chandra ‟ s case (supra) it had taken the charges against all the co-accused as a whole and not individual charges, therefore, if that be the position, this Court ought not to deny the bail to the petitioners on account of the omission, though inadvertent, in the order of the Apex Court. I am of the view that when the Supreme Court has reproduced the facts of the case, given the magnitude of the offence, the severity of the punishment which it entails, it has taken into note of the fact of the accused persons in general being charged for an offence under Section 409 IPC or the conspiracy thereof which carry life imprisonment. If despite the aforesaid facts, the Supreme Court has released the coaccused persons Sanjay Chandra R .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e we certainly respect the independence of the High Court and recognize that it is a co-equal institution, we cannot but say, at the same time, that the constitutional scheme and judicial discipline requires that the High Court should give due regard to the orders of this Court which are binding on all courts within the territory of India. 24. Mr.Altaf Ahmed, the learned senior counsel has also cited number of other judgments to impress on this Court, the question that the omission to mention of Section 409 IPC or the absence of the word life imprisonment ‟ in the Supreme Court order cannot be interpreted in a manner which may be detrimental to the interest of the petitioners on account of Article 141 of the Constitution of India as the Supreme Court has dealt with the facts of the case as a whole and was cognizant of the fact that the charges against all the petitioners had crystallized. It was also aware that common charges with regard to the commission of offence were framed against all the accused persons, which entailed imposition of life imprisonment, yet it consider the case of the co-accused Sanjay Chandra ‟ s Case (supra) fit to grant bail. These judg .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates