2023 (5) TMI 1381 - HC - Indian Laws

Statutory bail denied for extortion charges under IPC Sections 120-B, 384, UA(P) Act despite COVID delays

Delhi HC dismissed appellant's statutory bail application in case involving extortion charges under IPC Sections 120-B, 201, 384, 465, 467, 471, UA(P) Act ... Seeking grant of statutory bail - illegal means of extortion and by giving out loans at exorbitant rate of interest - offence punishable under Section 120-B, 201,384, 465, 467 & 471 IPC and Section 17, 18, 20 & 21 of UA (P) Act, 1967 and u/s 25(1A) of the Arms Act, 1959 - HELD THAT:- It is pertinent to mention herein that it was peak of Covid period and the Courts were functioning in a very restricted mode and the learned Metropolitan Magistrates were deputed to the Tihar Jail itself to extend the custody remands as it was not possible to bring all the under-trials lodged in the Tihar Jail to Courts because of Covid restrictions and it was also not possible to produce each and every accused before the concerned Court through video conferencing, because the Courts itself were functioning in a very restricted mode and at that time even appropriate video conferencing facilities were not available either at the Court rooms or at the residential offices of the judicial officers. Unless and until a bail order is passed the under-trial has to remain in judicial custody and as it was not possible for the accused to be produced before the Special Court because of the Covid restrictions, her remand was rightly extended by the Duty Metropolitan Magistrate as per the directions issued from time to time by the higher judicial authorities keeping in view the prevailing circumstances. Thus, filing of a complete charge-sheet within the stipulated period is sufficient compliance and no default bail can be granted in a case where cognizance was taken later on and the custody of the accused/appellant cannot be termed as illegal only on the ground that sufficient amount of time was spent by the court clerk to raise objections regarding page numbering and illegible documents etc., and the respondent/NIA had taken some time to respond to the said objections and after removal of objections, the cognizance was rightly taken on 03.07.2020. There is no illegality or infirmity in the orders passed from time to time regarding detention of the present appellant - Appeal dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Legality of the detention and remand orders.2. Entitlement to statutory bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.3. Completeness of the charge-sheet and the implications of filing an interim charge-sheet.4. Compliance with procedural requirements during the COVID-19 pandemic.5. Alleged involvement of the appellant in terrorist activities and the sufficiency of evidence.Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the Detention and Remand Orders:The appellant argued that she was detained illegally without proper judicial remand orders. The court examined the remand papers and noted that the accused was ordered to be produced through video conferencing due to COVID-19 restrictions. Despite some procedural overlaps, the court found that no part of the detention was without judicial authorization. The court acknowledged the challenges posed by the pandemic and concluded that the appellant was not detained illegally.2. Entitlement to Statutory Bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.:The appellant claimed entitlement to statutory bail, arguing that the charge-sheet was filed beyond the statutory period. The court referred to precedents, including the Supreme Court's judgment in Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Jain v. State of Maharashtra, to emphasize that the filing of a charge-sheet within the statutory period negates the right to default bail. The court held that the charge-sheet was filed within the stipulated time, and the subsequent cognizance by the court sufficed to deny statutory bail.3. Completeness of the Charge-sheet and Implications of Filing an Interim Charge-sheet:The appellant contended that the charge-sheet was incomplete, thus entitling her to bail. The court clarified that the charge-sheet filed against the appellant was a complete charge-sheet, and charges had already been framed. The court distinguished between the completion of investigation for the appellant and ongoing investigations for other accused persons, which is permissible under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. The court dismissed the notion of an interim charge-sheet, affirming the charge-sheet's completeness.4. Compliance with Procedural Requirements during the COVID-19 Pandemic:The appellant raised concerns about procedural lapses during the pandemic, such as the absence of video links and irregular remand extensions. The court recognized the unprecedented challenges during COVID-19 and upheld the procedural actions taken, emphasizing that the accused's detention was always under judicial orders. The court found no merit in objections related to procedural technicalities during the pandemic.5. Alleged Involvement in Terrorist Activities and Sufficiency of Evidence:The respondent presented evidence of the appellant's involvement with the NSCN (IM), a banned terrorist organization, including her role as a chairperson and minister within the organization. The court noted the sufficiency of evidence, including witness statements and digital evidence, establishing the appellant's involvement in terrorist activities. The court highlighted the risk of the appellant absconding or influencing witnesses if released on bail, further justifying the denial of bail.Conclusion:The court found no illegality or infirmity in the detention orders or the procedural conduct of the investigation. It upheld the filing of the charge-sheet within the statutory period and dismissed the appeal, concluding that the appellant was not entitled to statutory bail. The court emphasized the sufficiency of evidence against the appellant and the risks associated with her release, thereby affirming the trial court's decisions.