Gravity Can Only Beget Length of Sentence: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail In A Case For Misappropriation Of Government Scholarship Scheme Funds

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has recently held that even if there strong evidence about a socio-economic offence of serious magnitude, 'gravity can only beget length of the sentence' provided in law after the trial. Granting bail in a case of misappropriation of a government scholarship fund Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua noted that,

"Grant of bail cannot be thwarted merely by asserting that offence is grave and therefore, petitioner should remain in custody till the investigation of all the private educational institutes is completed, regarding timeline of which, respondent apparently has no clue."

In an allegation of misappropriation of government scholarship funds on a large scale with the complicity of officials, an FIR was filed under Sections 409, 419, 465, 466, 471 read with Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 13 (1) (c) and 13 (1) (d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The said FIR was registered on a complaint from the State Project Officer, State Project Monitoring and New Initiative Unit, Department of Higher Education, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla.

The said case was entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation, which carried out investigations. The CBI conducted searches of 22 private institutions which had disbursed the scholarships, w.e.f. 13.05.2019 to 16.05.2019 at 22 locations in the States of Himachal Pradesh, Haryana, Punjab, and the Union Territory of Chandigarh and noticed illegal siphoning through private institutions.

The Court noted that the grant of bail involves the reasonable exercise of discretionary power of the court, wherein not only the nature of accusations, but the severity of punishments, nature of evidence, apprehension of influencing the witnesses, tampering with evidence, the possibility of accused standing the trial are some of the factors to be considered, but the valuable right of liberty of an individual and interest of society in general also have to be balanced.

Noting that the investigation into various other private educational institutions is going on, the Court remarked that CBI has not been able to indicate any timeline about the completion of the investigation, despite the passing of two years and ten months.

The Court referred to the decision in State of Bihar & Anr v. Amit Kumar, where it was held that bail could not be granted mechanically on the ground that the accused was in custody for a long time. Socio-economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in bail, the Court had held.

Furthermore, in Nimmajadda Prasad v. CBI, while observing that white-collar crimes were on the rise and affecting the development of the country as a whole, held that while granting bail, the Court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of punishment on conviction, the character of accused, circumstances peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of accused at trial, reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with, larger interests of public/State and other similar considerations.

While emphasizing the overriding effect of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the Court in Rohit Tandon v. Directorate of Enforcement had observed that given the deep-rooted conspiracies and huge public losses, economic offences need to be seen seriously.

It was also expounded that at the stage of considering the bail application, it requires to be seen whether the accused had requisite mensrea. "A balance has to be maintained between a judgment of acquittal and conviction and an order granting bail. The duty of Court at this stage is not to weigh the evidence meticulously but to arrive at a finding on the basis of broad probabilities," it had noted.

In Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, the Apex Court noted that deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment unless it is required to ensure that the accused would stand trial when called upon and that 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 found guilty.

In the case of P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, the Apex Court, after taking note of various precedents, deduced that basic jurisprudence relating to a bail remains the same since the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception to ensure that the accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial. "Irrespective of nature and gravity of charge, the ultimate consideration will have to be on case to case basis on the facts involved therein and securing the presence of accused to stand trial," it had noted.

Noting that the investigation is still going on in the present case, the Court held that no purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in judicial custody. It remarked,

"Investigation should not be carried out indefinitely and forever without any regard to time, considering the interests of all involved. Nonetheless it is open to the respondent to continue to investigate into the matter, however, for this reason, petitioner cannot be permitted to incarcerate as a pre-trial prisoner. His liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution is also required to be protected."

Case Title: Vikas Bansal v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (HP) 9

Click Here To Download The Order

Read The Order