Pre-Arrest Bail Can't Be Routinely Granted Since Accused May Use It As Shield, Custodial Interrogation To Be Avoided When Accused Joins Probe: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has said that an order for the grant of pre-arrest bail cannot be passed in a routine manner so as to allow the accused to use it as a shield.

Justice Amit Mahajan observed that a great amount of humiliation and disgrace is attached to arrest, and custodial interrogation must be avoided where the accused has joined the investigation, cooperates with the investigating agency and is not likely to abscond.

“At the same time, it cannot be denied that great amount of humiliation and disgrace is attached with the arrest. In cases where the accused has joined investigation, cooperating with the Investigating Agency and is not likely to abscond, the custodial interrogation should be avoided. The purpose of custodial interrogation is to aid the investigation and is not punitive,” the court said.

It observed that bail proceedings should be utilized as a means for recovery in monetary disputes since recovery of money falls within the realm of civil proceedings.

Justice Mahajan made the observations while granting pre-arrest bail to various accused persons in a cheating case registered in 2018 by the Economic Offences Wing for the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The accused were granted interim protection by the court in 2020.

The court noted that it was not disputed that the accused had since joined the investigation, the probe was already complete and the chargesheet had already been filed.

It further noted that the maximum sentence prescribed in respect of the offences in question is 07 years and the chargesheet was filed by the State without feeling the necessity to arrest the accused persons.

“The custodial interrogation of the applicants is admittedly not required at this stage. In view of the above, the applicants, in the event of arrest, are directed to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000/- each with two sureties of the like amount…,” the court said.

Counsel for Applicants: Mr. Yogesh Sharma & Mr. Yogeshwar Singh, Advs

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State; Adv. Yash Anand & Adv. Jatin Katyal for complainant

Title: PRITHVI RAJ KASANA & ORS. v. STATE

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 317

Click Here To Read Order