Navpreet Singh v. State Through SHO

92. Sanjay Chandra v. CBI [Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40: (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 26: (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 397]: (SCC pp. 62-64, paras 39-40 & 46) “39. Coming back to the facts of the present case, both the courts have refused the request for grant of bail on two grounds: the primary ground is that the offence alleged against the accused persons is very serious involving deep-rooted planning in which, huge financial loss is caused to the State exchequer; the secondary ground is that of the possibility of the accused persons tampering with the witnesses. In the present case, the charge is that of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property and forgery for the purpose of cheating using as genuine a forged document. The punishment for the offence is imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years. It is, no doubt, true that the nature of the charge may be relevant, but at the same time, the punishment to which the party may be liable, if convicted, also bears upon the issue. Therefore, in determining whether to grant bail, both the seriousness of the charge and the severity of the punishment should be taken into consideration.

40. The grant or refusal to grant bail lies within the discretion of the court. The grant or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. But at the same time, right to bail is not to be denied merely because of the sentiments of the community against the accused. The primary purposes of bail in a criminal case are to relieve the accused of imprisonment, to relieve the State of the burden of keeping him, pending the trial, and at the same time, to keep the accused constructively in the custody of the court, whether before or after conviction, to assure that he will submit to the jurisdiction of the court and be in attendance thereon whenever his presence is required. ***

46. We are conscious of the fact that the accused are charged with economic offences of huge magnitude. We are also conscious of the fact that the offences alleged, if proved, may jeopardise the economy of the country. At the same time, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the investigating agency has already completed investigation and the chargesheet is already filed before the Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi. Therefore, their presence in the custody may not be necessary for further investigation. We are of the view that the appellants are entitled to the grant of bail pending trial on stringent conditions in order to ally the apprehension expressed by CBI.” Role of the court

93. The rate of conviction in criminal cases in India is abysmally low. It appears to us that this factor weighs on the mind of the Court while deciding the bail applications in a negative sense. Courts tend to think that the possibility of a conviction being nearer to rarity, bail applications will have to be decided strictly, contrary to legal principles. We cannot mix up consideration of a bail application, which is not punitive in nature with that of a possible adjudication by way of trial. On the contrary, an ultimate acquittal with continued custody would be a case of grave injustice.

94. Criminal courts in general with the trial court in particular are the guardian angels of liberty. Liberty, as embedded in the Code, has to be preserved, protected, and enforced by the criminal courts. Any conscious failure by the criminal courts would constitute an affront to liberty. It is the pious duty of the criminal court to zealously guard and keep a consistent vision in safeguarding the constitutional values and ethos. A criminal court must uphold the constitutional thrust with responsibility mandated on them by acting akin to a high priest.” (emphasis supplied)

9. In Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held as under: “21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. 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. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.

22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some unconvicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at 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 be 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 unconvicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson.” (emphasis supplied)

10. The material qua the present applicant in relation to allegations of forgery is based on the disclosure statement of the co-accused recorded during investigation. The role of the applicant, as per the status report is that he was a direct sales agent, who introduced co-accused Gurmeet Singh @ Harpreet Singh to co-accused persons Harjeet Singh and Rajiv Kumar Nigam. The evidence against the applicant is documentary in nature. The documents demonstrating the alleged chain of transactions have been recovered and are in possession of the investigating agency. The applicant is also stated to be on bail a similar FIR bearing No. 55/2018, under Sections 420/419/406/468/471/120B of the IPC registered at P.S. EOW, South-East. The present applicant was given the benefit of interim bail. He is stated to have complied with the conditions of the said interim bail and duly surrendered upon its expiry. The investigation in the present case is complete and the chargesheet stands filed. The trial is still at the stage of consideration on charge and is likely to take a long time to conclude.

11. As per nominal roll dated 03.08.2023, the applicant has been in judicial custody for 08 months and 23 days since 30.09.2023. The nominal roll reflects that the applicant was released on interim bail on 18.06.2023 and he duly surrendered after its expiry.

12. In totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the present application is allowed.

13. The applicant is admitted to bail upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- alongwith one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/Link Court, further subject to the following conditions: i. The memo of parties shows that the applicant is residing at H. No. WZ- 15, Gali No. 14, Ratan Park, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi. In case of any change of address, the applicant is directed to inform the same to the learned Trial Court and the Investigating Officer. ii. The applicant shall not leave India without the prior permission of the learned Trial Court. iii. The applicant is directed to give all his mobile numbers to the Investigating Officer and keep them operational at all times. iv. The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, tamper with evidence or try to influence the witnesses in any manner. v. The applicant shall join the investigation, as and when required by the Investigating Officer. vi. In case it is established that the applicant tried to tamper with the evidence, the bail granted to the applicant shall stand cancelled forthwith.

14. The application stands disposed of along with all the pending application(s), if any.

15. Needless to state, nothing mentioned hereinabove is an opinion on the merits of the case.

16. Let a copy of this judgment be communicated to the concerned Jail Superintendent.

17. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court, forthwith.

AMIT SHARMA JUDGE SEPTEMBER 01, 2023