Mere Vague Belief That Accused May Thwart Investigation Cannot Be A Ground To Prolong The Incarceration: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that mere vague belief that the accused may thwart the investigation cannot be a ground to prolong the incarceration of the accused.

Justice Subramonium Prasad added that if there is no apprehension of interference in administration of justice in a criminal trial by an accused, then the Court should be circumspect while considering depriving the accused of their personal liberty.

"Therefore, the magnitude of the offence cannot be the only criterion for denial of bail. 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," the Court added.

The Court granted bail to two men in connection with an FIR registered offences under sec. 406, 420, 409 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

A complaint was filed by an ex-serviceman stating that SMP IMPEX Pvt. Ltd. (Hello Taxi), and its Directors or Officials, including the petitioners and other unknown persons had committed cheating and fraud.

It was argued on behalf of one of the petitioners, Sunder Singh Bhati that he had been languishing in jail since 09.12.2020 and that no recovery was made him, therefore, there was no link tying him to the alleged scam.

It was argued that the Trial Court har erred in observing that the only investors who had gained from the scheme were relatives of the Petitioner. It was also stated that several of the alleged victims received up to 40- 50% of their invested amount within a month which buttressed the fact that early investors had received significant returns from the accused Company.

Therefore, it was argued that it was not rational to assume that the Petitioner would induce his own relatives to invest in a scheme if he possessed the intention to scam people.

For the second petitioner, it was argued that there was no evidence to indicate that the Petitioner had induced the investors and concocted lies about RBI authorization. The bail pleas were vehemently opposed by the prosecution.

Perusing the chargesheet, the Court noted that both the Petitioners were involved in the multi-person scam involving more than Rs. 200 crores from the inception of the same and that both were instrumental in misleading the public into investing in the scheme with no intention of returning the money.

"There are more than 900 complaints till date which have been made pertaining to the scam and the investigation has revealed that the Petitioners played an integral role, right from inducing the public to the siphoning off of the cheated money. Further, multiple other FIRs are also pending against both the Petitioners. The gravity of the offences is such that if the Petitioners are subsequently convicted, they will be liable to be sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life," the Court noted.

However, it added that the gravity of the offence cannot be the sole ground to deny bail to the Petitioners.

Noting that both the petitioners have been in custody for over a year, the Court said:

"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."

Accordingly, the Court granted bail to the two.

Title: SUNDER SINGH BHATI v. THE STATE

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 147

Click Here To Read Order