2026 (1) TMI 1068 - HC - Indian Laws

Entitlement to regular bail in economic offence probe where arrest lacked necessity and custodial interrogation; bail granted on conditions

Entitlement to regular bail in an economic offences prosecution is considered where the arrest was effected without satisfaction of mandatory statutory ... Entitlement to regular bail u/s 483 - Necessity and proportionality of arrest - custodial interrogation - pre-trial incarceration - prima facie case - economic offences - criminal conspiracy - tampering with evidence - Prolonged pre-trial incarceration violates Article 21 - personal liberty - statutory parameters of arrest - documentary and electronic evidence - HELD THAT:- There is no evidence of any physical manifestation of agreement or common design between the Applicant and other accused so as to constitute an offence under Section 120-B IPC. The mere association or communication, without proof of agreement to commit an illegal act, cannot constitute criminal conspiracy. Reliance is placed on Ram Sharan Chaturvedi v. State of M.P [2022 (8) TMI 1606 - SUPREME COURT] wherein the Apex Court held that criminal conspiracy cannot be inferred from mere association or communication. It is also significant that no summons, notice, or intimation was ever issued to the Applicant after registration of the FIR. No search or seizure was conducted at his premises, and no recovery whatsoever has been effected from his possession. These admitted facts clearly establish that custodial interrogation was neither required nor indispensable for the purpose of investigation. The arrest of the Applicant has been effected mechanically and as a matter of routine, without recording satisfaction of the mandatory statutory conditions and in complete disregard of the constitutional mandate under Article 21. Such arrest, unsupported by investigative necessity, amounts to punitive detention at the pre-trial stage, which is impermissible in law. Tested on the anvil of the settled principles laid down by the Apex Court, the arrest of the Applicant in the present case is manifestly arbitrary, unconstitutional, and unsustainable in law. The continued incarceration of the Applicant serves no legitimate purpose of investigation and is liable to be set aside. The Applicant, therefore, deserves to be enlarged on bail in the interest of justice. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that a bail proceeding cannot be converted into a mini-trial, and that issues relating to appreciation of evidence, contradictions, omissions or credibility of witnesses are matters squarely within the domain of trial. In this regard, reliance is placed on the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India [2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT (LB)], wherein it has been categorically held that while considering bail, the Court must confine itself to a prima facie view and must refrain from delving into the evidentiary details so as to record findings which may prejudice either side at the stage of trial. In view of the overwhelming prima facie material, the grave nature and magnitude of the offence, the systematic and organized manner of commission, the Applicant’s influential position, and the real likelihood of obstruction of justice, the Respondent–State submits that no case for grant of bail is made out The instant bail application is devoid of merits, suffers from suppression of material considerations, and, if allowed, would seriously undermine public confidence in the administration of criminal justice. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the Applicant was not named in the FIR, no recovery has been effected from him, and the prosecution case, insofar as the Applicant is concerned, rests primarily on the statement of one Siddharth Singhania, who has merely stated that certain amounts were transferred to him. At this stage, there is no independent material on record demonstrating that such alleged transfer was at the behest of the Applicant or for his benefit. Having considered the rival submissions, the nature of allegations, the stage of investigation, the period of custody already undergone, parity with co-accused, and the settled principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that continued incarceration of the Applicant is neither necessary nor justified. The Applicant has made out a case for grant of regular bail. The ends of justice would be adequately served by enlarging him on bail subject to appropriate conditions, without commenting on the merits of the case. Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be allowed. The Applicant shall be released on regular bail in connection with the subject crime, upon his furnishing a personal bond. Issues: Whether the Applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with FIR No. 01/2024 having regard to (i) the nature and stage of investigation, (ii) delay in arrest and absence of recoveries, (iii) completion of investigation and filing of supplementary charge-sheet, and (iv) parity with co-accused and risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.Analysis: The Court examined whether continued pre-trial detention was necessary and proportionate in light of settled principles governing arrest and bail, including the requirement that arrest or continued custody be justified by demonstrable necessity. The material shows that the Applicant was not named in the FIR or original charge-sheet, was arrested after a delay of over one year and seven months, no search or recovery was effected from his premises, and investigation qua the Applicant stands substantially completed with a supplementary charge-sheet on record. The prosecution case against the Applicant rests predominantly on documentary and electronic material and statements of co-accused, which are not, without independent corroboration, substantive proof at the bail stage. The Court also considered parity with co-accused already enlarged on bail, the likely prolonged duration of trial given voluminous material and many witnesses, and relevant constitutional and precedent authorities emphasizing that custodial detention is an exception and liberty the norm. The Court held that speculative or generalized apprehensions of tampering or influencing witnesses, unsupported by concrete material, cannot justify continued incarceration where investigation is complete and the presence of the accused can be secured by conditions.Conclusion: The bail application is allowed and the Applicant is directed to be released on regular bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000 with two local sureties of like amount and subject to specified conditions, including surrender of passport, cooperation with investigation and trial, and prohibition on influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence. The order is confined to the bail petition and does not express any view on the merits of the case.