2025 (5) TMI 176 - HC - Customs

Undertrial granted regular bail after one year custody in economic offence case involving conspiracy, forgery, cheating

Delhi HC granted regular bail to an undertrial accused in a large-scale economic offence involving criminal conspiracy, forgery, cheating, and ... Right to speedy trial - undertrial has been in custody for too long - large-scale economic offence involving criminal conspiracy, forgery, cheating, and misappropriation of public funds - grant of regular bail - HELD THAT:- It is crucial for a court to recognise and be conscious of the right of an accused to speedy trial; and to prevent that right from being defeated, rather than wake-up much too late and lament that such right has been defeated. In Mohd. Hakim vs. State (NCT of Delhi) [2021 (10) TMI 1414 - DELHI HIGH COURT], a Division Bench of this court, of which the undersigned was a member, has urged courts to act as doctors instead of coroners, to highlight that a court seized of a bail petition must endeavour to assess the pace at which a trial is proceeding and to not wait for too long, by which time the Article 21 right of an accused is already trampled upon. In the present case, for example, the chargesheet comprising about 10,000 pages was filed over 01 year ago citing 49 prosecution witnesses but charges are yet to be framed. It is therefore obvious that trial will take a long time to conclude. In the meantime however, the petitioner has already suffered more than 01 year of judicial custody and has been exposed to ‘prisonisation’; and there appears to be no cogent basis to satisfy the test of ‘necessity’ as discussed above for his continued detention. Considering the allegations in the subject FIR insofar as they relate to the petitioner, this court is accordingly persuaded to admit the petitioner to regular bail, pending trial, subject to the conditions imposed - bail application allowed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered by the Court in this judgment are:- Whether the petitioner, accused in a large-scale economic offence involving criminal conspiracy, forgery, cheating, and misappropriation of public funds, is entitled to regular bail pending trial.- Whether the petitioner's extended period of pre-trial incarceration violates his constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.- The scope and application of bail jurisprudence principles, particularly the test of 'necessity' for continued detention of an undertrial accused.- The relevance of the petitioner's specific role and involvement in the alleged conspiracy vis-`a-vis other co-accused persons who have been granted bail.- The potential risks of tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, or obstructing justice if bail is granted.- The impact of prolonged pre-trial detention on the accused, including the phenomenon of 'prisonisation' and loss of fundamental rights.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Entitlement to Regular Bail Pending TrialLegal framework and precedents: The Court relied extensively on the Supreme Court's bail jurisprudence, including principles laid down in Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI (2012), Sunil Fulchand Shah vs. Union of India (2000), and Mohd. Muslim vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023). The test of 'necessity' governs the grant or denial of bail, requiring courts to justify the need for continued detention of an undertrial. Bail is not punitive but a mechanism to ensure the accused's presence at trial and prevent interference with the course of justice.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court emphasized that the petitioner is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and the mere gravity or multiplicity of charges cannot justify indefinite pre-trial detention. The petitioner's role was found to be limited to acting as a conduit or hawala operator facilitating the routing of funds, without involvement in the forgery or knowledge of the full scale of the conspiracy. The chargesheet filed over a year ago contains voluminous evidence, but trial has not yet commenced, indicating a prolonged judicial process.Key evidence and findings: The chargesheet cited 49 witnesses and approximately 10,000 pages of documentary evidence. The petitioner has already undergone about 13 months of judicial custody. Co-accused persons with arguably lesser involvement have been granted bail by the trial court and this Court. There was no material prima facie indicating the petitioner's awareness of the criminal nature of the funds or direct involvement in forgery.Application of law to facts: Applying the principle that bail is to be granted unless there is necessity for detention, and considering the petitioner's limited role and prolonged incarceration, the Court found no sufficient ground to deny bail. The petitioner's continued detention was not justified on the basis of risk of absconding or tampering with evidence, especially given the safeguards proposed.Treatment of competing arguments: The State argued that the petitioner's role was significant in siphoning off large sums and that bail could lead to obstruction of justice or witness intimidation. The Court distinguished the petitioner's role from other co-accused and noted the absence of concrete material indicating risk of tampering. The Court also rejected the State's reliance on the gravity of the offence alone to deny bail, reiterating that bail is not to be denied as a punitive measure or as a mark of disapproval.Conclusions: The petitioner was held entitled to regular bail pending trial, subject to conditions designed to mitigate risks of interference with the judicial process.Issue 2: Violation of Right to Speedy Trial Due to Prolonged Pre-Trial CustodyLegal framework and precedents: The right to speedy trial is implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution and is a fundamental safeguard against arbitrary deprivation of liberty. The Court cited Mohd. Muslim vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023) and Hussainara Khatoon vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar (1980) to emphasize the constitutional guarantee. The Court also referenced the phenomenon of 'prisonisation' as highlighted in Mohd. Muslim, describing the psychological and social harms of prolonged detention.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court expressed concern that the petitioner had already suffered over a year in custody without trial commencement, despite the chargesheet being filed more than a year ago. The Court underscored the need for courts to act proactively to prevent erosion of the right to speedy trial rather than lamenting its violation belatedly.Key evidence and findings: The delay in framing charges and starting the trial, despite voluminous evidence and numerous witnesses, was noted. The petitioner's incarceration period exceeded the maximum punishment prescribed for the offences he was charged with, further underscoring the disproportionality of detention.Application of law to facts: The Court applied the constitutional mandate to ensure reasonable, fair, and just procedure, finding that the delay in trial completion and extended custody violated the petitioner's right to speedy trial. This violation weighed heavily in favor of granting bail.Treatment of competing arguments: The State's argument that ongoing investigation justified detention was rejected in light of the chargesheet already filed and the absence of trial progress. The Court emphasized that the right to speedy trial is the 'flip-side' of the presumption of innocence and must be protected.Conclusions: The petitioner's right to speedy trial had been compromised, justifying release on bail pending trial.Issue 3: Risk of Tampering with Evidence or Witness IntimidationLegal framework and precedents: Bail may be denied if there is a real apprehension of tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses, as established in Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI (2012).Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court found no cogent material on record indicating that the petitioner would tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses if released on bail. The petitioner had previously been released on interim bail thrice without violation of conditions, indicating compliance and low risk.Key evidence and findings: The State's apprehension was based on the nature of the offence rather than specific conduct or threats by the petitioner. The Court noted that two co-accused remain at large, but this did not justify continued detention of the petitioner.Application of law to facts: The Court balanced the risk of interference with the safeguards imposed as bail conditions, including prohibition on contacting witnesses, surrender of passport, and furnishing contact details.Treatment of competing arguments: The Court distinguished the petitioner's role from other accused and found the State's apprehensions insufficient to deny bail.Conclusions: The risk of tampering or intimidation did not justify continued detention; bail conditions would mitigate any such risks.Issue 4: Parity with Co-Accused Persons Who Have Been Granted BailLegal framework and precedents: The principle of parity requires that similarly situated accused be treated alike unless material differences exist.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court acknowledged that three co-accused persons had been granted bail by the trial court or this Court. However, the State argued that the petitioner's role was more significant. The Court analyzed the evidence and found that the petitioner's role was limited to facilitating fund transfers without direct involvement in forgery or conspiracy planning, unlike the main accused.Key evidence and findings: Co-accused Deepesh Chamoli's role was limited to the last transaction as a bank manager; Prasenjit Mitra was a lawyer; Pooja Ghosh was related to the main accused. The petitioner acted as a hawala operator but without knowledge of the criminal nature of the funds.Application of law to facts: The Court found no material to distinguish the petitioner's bail eligibility adversely compared to co-accused already released on bail.Treatment of competing arguments: The State's argument of significant role was considered but found unsubstantiated on the record.Conclusions: Parity favored granting bail to the petitioner.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS- 'The effect of granting bail is not to set an undertrial completely at liberty but to release him from the custody of law and entrust him to the custody of his surety; and the surety is bound to ensure his production at the trial.'- 'The 'operative' test that a court must apply for grant or denial of bail is the test of 'necessity', namely to answer why it is necessary to detain an undertrial in custody.'- 'Bail must not be denied as a mark of disapproval of the alleged conduct of an accused; nor should it be denied for giving to an accused the taste of imprisonment as a lesson.'- 'The consequences of pre-trial detention are grave: an accused, who is otherwise presumed innocent until proven guilty, is subject to psychological and physical deprivations of jail life; and is even prevented from contributing to the preparation of his defense.'- 'The right to speedy trial is implicit in the broad-sweep of Article 21 of the Constitution; and a procedure prescribed by law that deprives a person of liberty can only be said to be reasonable, fair and just on the anvil of Article 21 if it also ensures speedy trial.'- 'It would therefore be sacrilege for a court to disregard the presumption of innocence which enures to the benefit of an accused, while on the other hand failing to ensure speedy trial.'- 'It is crucial for a court to recognise and be conscious of the right of an accused to speedy trial; and to prevent that right from being defeated, rather than wake-up much too late and lament that such right has been defeated.'- The Court concluded that the petitioner's extended detention without trial violated his constitutional rights and that there was no necessity to continue his custody, thereby admitting him to regular bail subject to stringent conditions.