Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Against Order Denying Bail To Woman In Jail With Infant For Over 4 Months

The Supreme Court on Thursday issued notice on a Special Leave Petition moved against an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court wherein the petitioner's bail application under Section 439 of the CrPC had been rejected thereby confirming her incarceration along with her 3.5 month old infant on the ground that the allegations against her are grave and serious in nature.

A bench comprising Justice Abdul Nazeer and Justice PS Narasimha issued notice on the plea on Thursday and accordingly observed, 

"Issue notice. Petitioner is permitted to serve the standing counsel for the State, in addition."

The matter is listed for further hearing on July 11. 

In the instant case, the petitioner was alleged involved in connection with a case pertaining to the opening of a bank account in the name of a Government office on the basis of fake documents where the signatures of a senior police officer were forged by the accused persons. The said bank account was allegedly used to siphon off huge amount of money nearing Rs. 64.49 crores to the account of the company M/s Koshia Enterprises Pvt. Ltd where the petitioner was the Director and the authorized signatory. 

While rejecting the bail application, the Punjab and Haryana High Court had opined that Section 437 CrPC does not guarantee an absolute right to bail in a case wherein the general public has allegedly been duped of hundred crores of rupees by the accused. 

The High Court had further opined that the fact that the petitioner has an infant with her is no ground for granting them bail at this stage as the jail authorities are bound to provide all the medical assistance to the petitioner and her child, if so required. 

In the special leave petition filed against the impugned order, it has been argued that the Single Judge had failed to appreciate the legislative intent behind the Proviso to Section 437 of CrPC which carves out a specific exception when the accused is a woman, infirm or a person of old age even in cases where the offence is punishable with death, imprisonment for life or even when the accused has been previously convicted for offences. 

Opining that the impugned order had failed to appreciate that even a young infant of 3.5 months was also arrested along with his mother, the plea averred, 

"The impugned judgment dated 12.05.2022 has also failed to appreciate that a young infant of 3.5 months was arrested along with his mother on 13.01.2022 and there is no principle of criminal law which contemplates vicarious imprisonment of an infant, as that would be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution."

Furthermore, reliance was also placed on the Supreme Court judgment in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI to contend that continued incarceration during the pendency of trial is an affront to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. 

It was further brought to the notice of the Supreme Court that over 99 witnesses are proposed to be examined by the prosecution as per the chargesheet filed which runs into over 12000 pages and thus it would result in prolonged indefinite incarceration of the accused and her infant thereby violating the fundamental guarantee to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.

"Since the Petitioner and her infant have been languishing in prison for over 4 months while the investigation stands completed, and the impugned judgement dated 12.05.2022 has failed to take note of the fact that over 12,000 pages of chargesheet have been filed with 99 witnesses and none of these witnesses have alleged anything against the Petitioner herein, any prolonged incarceration would only be punitive and vindictive instead of being just and reasonable. The Petitioner is thus constrained to prefer the present Special Leave Petition", the plea reads further. 

Pertinently, the plea further contended that the impugned order committed a 'serious error' by ordering for the registration of a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 in a bail application especially when innumerable witnesses are left to be examined thereby adversing effecting the fate of the trial. 

The petitioner has been represented by senior advocate Anand Grover and advocates Nipun Saxena and Astha Sharma. 

Case Title: Mamta v. State of Haryana 

Click Here To Read/Download Order