Pre-Trial Detention Impacts Right Of Accused To Defend Himself, Affects Fair Trial Guaranteed Under Article 21: Delhi High Court

Noting that the consequences of pre-trial detention are grave in nature, the Delhi High Court has observed that keeping an undertrial in custody would impact his right to defend himself during trial and that he will be clearly denied the right to a fair trial which is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh made the observation while granting bail to one Vikas Chawla accused of cheating HDFC Bank as well as BMW Financial Services to the tune of several crores of rupees by using forged and fabricated documents and emails.

Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 5th August, 2021 and was in custody since then. It was submitted that the investigation of the case was completed and Chargesheet was also filed. He also argued that all the incriminating evidences and materials against the petitioner were documentary in nature and that there was no chances of the petitioner tampering with the same.

It was also submitted that arrangement of availing credit facilities from the Complainant bank continued from 9th January 2014 to till February, 2020, for which re-payments along with interest of Rs. 13.27 crores were made by the Accused Company to BMW India Financial Services Private Limited from time to time. It was also submitted that the Accused Company had made repayments of Rs. 600 crores approximately to Complainant bank over the course of their business relations.

Pahwa also argued that the Investigating Officer had issued notices under Sec. 91A of the Cr.P.C on 22rd March 2021, 16th March 2021 and 7th June 2021, to which the Accused company had filed a reply dated 3rd July 2021. It was argued that a counterblast to order dated 22nd June 2021 passed by the court below whereby the investigating officer was directed to withdraw the notice under Sec. 91 of the Cr.P.C, the Investigating officer arrested the Petitioner on 5th August 2021 and was since then languishing in Judicial Custody.

On the other hand, it was argued by the State that the Petitioner was previously also involved in a case of UPPCL Employees' Provident Fund scam and that if he is released on bail, he may commit similar offences.

The Court perused an affidavit filed by the petitioner's wife disclosing the mode of repayment to the financial institutions at his place of residence and also about the proposal of the mode of repayment of the liability of the HDFC Bank. The affidavit also stated about the liability of the BMW India Financial Service Private Limited and the proposal of the mode of repayment of the liability of the BMW.

In the said affidavit, the petitioner had also undertaken that he was bonafide businessman and had honest intentions to perform all his responsibilities, for which he will make all endeavor to repay the outstanding balance to the financiers.

The Court also perused the medical report of the Petitioner seeking interim bail on medical grounds which stated that he was a patient of uncontrolled Diabetes Mellitus type- II, Hypertension and seasonal Bronchial Asthma, with sugar levels and HB1AC extremely high and being fatal in nature.

"All the incriminating evidences/materials against the Petitioner/Applicant are documentary in nature and have already been seized by the investigating agency. As per the statutory provisions, the maximum sentence for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC is upto seven years," the Court said.

The Court was of the view that it is a settled law that fraudulent and dishonest intention should be present since inception for an offence of Cheating. Accordingly, the Court said that in the present case, a non-payment of miniscule amount in comparison to the huge amounts paid over the years was deliberately given a criminal colour.

Noting that the petitioner had been languishing in jail for more than five months, the Court said:

"Taking into consideration the facts of the case, the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties, the proposal given by the Petitioner/Applicant, the materials on record and the medical reports of the Petitioner/Applicant, this Court is inclined to enlarge the Petitioner on bail."

Accordingly, bail was granted by the Court.

Case Title: VIKAS CHAWLA v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 103

Click Here To Read Order