'Magnitude Of Offence Can't Be Only Criterion For Denial Of Bail': Delhi High Court Grants Relief To Accused In Hello Taxi Scam Case

While granting bail to two men accused of a multi-crore scam, the Delhi High Court recently observed that the magnitude of the offence cannot be the only criterion for denial of bail.

Justice Subramonium Prasad observed,

"The object of bail is to secure the presence of the accused at the time of trial; this object is, thus, neither punitive nor preventative, and a person who has not been convicted should only be kept in custody if there are reasons to believe that they might flee from justice or tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses."

Background

The petitioners sought regular bail in a crime registered in the Economic Offences Wing Police Station under Section 406, 420, 409, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The accused-petitioner are the Directors and Promoters of one IMPEX Pvt Ltd., alleged of committing cheating and fraud. It is alleged that they promised a 200% return within one year on investments.

The complainant had invested an amount of Rs. 9,00,000/- while his friends had also invested some amount in the proposed investment plan. It was promised that the installments to the investors on the 10th of every month. However, for the first three months, no installment was made. On inquiry, it was told to the investors that the Company's account was frozen.

The money has not been returned to date, and the accused are avoiding his calls.

While the anticipatory bail of the petitioner accused was pending, he was arrested, rendering it infructuous. Since December 2020, the petitioner accused has been in jail.

Findings of the Court

On hearing the submission of both the parties, the Court noted that the petitioners have been in custody for a year now, while the charge sheet and the supplementary charge sheet have been filed. The Court held that culpability is a matter of trial and cannot be decided at this stage.

The Court also noted that when there is no apprehension of interference in administering justice in a criminal trial by an accused, the Court should be cautious while considering depriving the accused of their liberty. Based on a mere vague belief that the accused may thwart the investigation, incarceration cannot be prolonged, the Court added.

Reliance was placed on Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012).

"Chargesheet as well as supplementary chargesheet have been filed, and all the evidence available is documentary in nature and in custody of the investigating agency. Whether or not the cheated money was entrusted to the Petitioners is a matter of trial and cannot be taken into consideration at this juncture. This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that continued custody of the Petitioners is no longer required and that both the Petitioners should be enlarged on bail."

Advocates Pradeep Singh Rana, Ankit Rana, Abhishek Rana, Piyush Pushkar and Nitish Pande appeared for Petitioners; APP Amit Chadha appeared for the State. 

Case Title: Surendra Singh Bhati v. State (NCT of Delhi) and other connected matters

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 27

Click Here To Download The Order

Read The Order