Bail Plea Shouldn't Be Rejected To Give Accused A Taste Of Imprisonment As A Lesson: Allahabad High Court

A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal added that while considering the bail application, apart from the seriousness of the charges and severity of punishment, paramount consideration should be given to whether there are chances of absconding or tampering with the witnesses or intimidation to the victim or witnesses on the part of the accused.

The single judge made this observation while allowing a bail plea filed by Maya Tiwari, who has been booked under Sections 406, 420, 419, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B IPC and Section 66-D IT Act on the allegations of defrauding people by issuing fake tenders for the One Nation, One Ration Card scheme.

Arrested in October last year, Tiwari allegedly worked with a gang issuing fake tenders for the One Nation, One Ration Card scheme in the ministry deputy secretary's name.

She moved the Court seeking bail on the grounds that as per the FIR and the first informant's statement, while Rs.10,00,000 was transferred to the applicant and her family, Rs.8,70,000 was sent back to the first informant. 

Her counsel (Advocate Saurabh Pandey) claimed that Tiwari has already transferred more than the agreed cheque amount of Rs.5,20,500 and that she (accused-Tiwari) was a victim of the fraud committed by prime co-accused Santosh Kumar Semwal, who allegedly prepared the forged work order alleged to be issued from PMO and sent to the Tiwari's Whatsapp number, which Tiwari bonafidely forwarded to the first informant.

Lastly, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Manish Sisodia Vs Directorate of Enforcement 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 563, Tiwari's counsel emphasized that bail should not be punitive and since, her co-accused have already been granted bail, she should also be released on bail.

On the other hand, the AGA for the state argued that the forged work order was sent from the applicant's Whatsapp number, Rs.10,00,000/—was transferred to her account, as well as to the accounts of her husband and her daughter, and she misrepresented herself as a higher officer in the PMO.

It was further submitted that if the applicant was duped by co-accused Santosh Kumar Semwal, she should have filed a police complaint against him.

Considering the rival submission of parties and on perusal of the record, the Court, at the outset, noted that an amount of about Rs.8,70,000/—had already been transferred in the account of the first informant before lodging the FIR and in the agreement entered into between the applicant and the first informant, the amount of the cheque is only Rs.5,20,500/—against which the applicant transferred more than Rs.8,70,000/—in the account of the first informant.

Further, the Court also noted that any imprisonment before the conviction has a substantial punitive content, and it would be improper for any court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of the 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 [Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2012)].

Further, underscoring that in India, it has been consistent stand of the court regarding presumption of innocence being the facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the Court also took into account Apex Court's recent ruling in the case of Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 571 wherein it was observed that 'bail is the rule, jail is the exception' even in special statutes like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967.

The Court also referred to the Top Court's ruling in Manish Sisodia case wherein it was observed that keeping a person in jail during a trial over a period of time is not proper and while keeping a person in a trial for long time, the court has forgotten very well settled principles of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment.

In view of this, the Court noted that the prosecution's case is not that there are chances of absconding or tampering with the witnesses or intimidation of victim or witnesses on the part of the applicant, who is a lady and is also in jail since 12.10.2023.

The Court also considered that no charges have been been framed to date, there is no likelihood of an early conclusion of the trial, and that the court has already granted bail to co-accused persons.

In such circumstances, the court allowed her bail plea, adding that refusing bail would amount to a travesty of justice and would also violate Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Counsel for Applicant: Saurabh Pandey, Kirti Chaurasia, Man Bahadur Singh, Sarvjeet Kumar, Suresh Chandra Pandey, Vikrant Pandey

Counsel for Opposite Party: Akhilesh Kumar Tiwari, G.A., Jitendra Kumar Maurya

Case title - Maya Tiwari vs. State of U.P

Case citation :

Click Here ToRead/Download Order