TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (9) TMI 1970
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....been found innocent in the investigation. The allegations in the FIR pertain to credit facilities sanctioned by the bank, which were availed by the firm M/s. R.S. Fastners, which was the customer of the bank. Petitioner joined his duty on promotion as Chief Manager on 10.09.2010. A proposal was submitted by the said firm for expansion-cum-modernisation of their industrial unit in the year 2010. For the purpose of proposed expansion, said firm purchased land and building over a plot measuring 6750 square yards. The sale deed of the said property indicated the consideration amount of ' 1.30 crores. The title of the property was found in order stating to be clear from all encumbrances. Learned counsel further submits that for examination of proposal of additional credit facilities, a techno economic viability study was got conducted through Manager (Industry) in the concerned branch. Apart from that study, two separate valuations reports were also obtained in respect of assets including added assets of the industrial unit. Said valuations were obtained from two separate approved valuers of the bank. The value of assets was ' 11.83 crores and ' 12.82 crores respectively. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ery of the industrial unit and has realised the funds towards part recovery of the dues. Learned senior counsel submits that recourse of recovery is pending. The petitioner is 62 years old person and is having unblemished service record in his long career. There was no default on his part while appearing before CBI during investigation. All original documents are either in the hands of CBI or with the Court. The challan in the case has already been presented on 14.10.2017. There are total 17 accused and 190 prosecution witnesses and trial is likely to take time to conclude. No purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody. Learned senior counsel also submits that the petitioner undertakes that he will not directly or indirectly influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence. He is in custody for the last more than one year and two months. In support of his arguments, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has relied upon judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in case Sanjay Chandra v. CBI 2011(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 898 and judgment of this Court in case CRM-M No. 19535 of 2018 titled as Giri Raj v. State of Haryana decided on 14.09.2018. 3. Mr. S.S. Sandhu, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd 190 witnesses and trial may take long time to conclude. All the documents are either with the Court or with the bank and no useful purpose would be served by keeping him in custody. 7. In a landmark decision in Sanjay Chandra's case (supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India crystallised the law in respect of regular bail in the following paragraphs:- "21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. 22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some unconvicted persons should be held in custody pending t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s to dissuade him to disclose such facts to the Court or to any other authority. (b) They shall remain present before the court on the dates fixed for hearing of the case. If they want to remain absent, then they shall take prior permission of the court and in case of unavoidable circumstances for remaining absent, they shall immediately give intimation to the appropriate court and also to the Superintendent, CBI and request that they may be permitted to be present through the counsel. (c) They will not dispute their identity as the accused in the case. (d) They shall surrender their passport, if any (if not already surrendered), and in case, they are not a holder of the same, they shall swear to an affidavit. If they have already surrendered before the learned Special Judge, CBI, that fact should also be supported by an affidavit. (e) We reserve liberty to CBI to make an appropriate application for "modification/recalling the order passed by us, if for any reason, the appellants violate any of the conditions imposed by this Court." 8. In Rajat Sharma v. State of NCT of Delhi reported as 2015(3) JCC 1493, the Delhi High Court was pleased to observe in paragraph 7 of the re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s a value of our constitutional system recognised under Article 21 that the crucial power to negate it was a great trust exercisable not casually but judicially, with lively concern for the cost to the individual and the community. It was further held that deprivation of personal freedom must be founded on the most serious considerations relevant to the welfare objectives of society specified in the Constitution. The learned Judge quoted Lord Russel who had said that bail was not to be withheld as a punishment and that the requirements as to bail were merely to secure the attendance of the prisoner at trial. According to V.R. Krishna Iyer, J., the principal rule to guide release on bail should be to secure the presence of the applicant to take judgment and serve sentence in the event of the Court punishing him with imprisonment. After holding that it makes sense to assume that a man on bail has a better chance to prepare and present his case than one remanded in custody the learned Judge observed that if public justice is to be promoted mechanical detention should be demoted. 12. The principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Gurcharan Singh and Others v. State (Delhi Administra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed that there was no hard and fast rule and no inflexible principle governing the exercise of the discretion conferred by Section 498 and that the only principle which was established was that the discretion should be exercised judiciously. The Supreme Court referred also the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Emperor v. H.L. Hutchinson, AIR 1931 Allahabad 356, wherein it was held that the principle to be deduced from the various sections in the Cr.P.C. was that grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception, that as a presumably innocent person, the accused person is entitled to freedom and every opportunity to look after his own case and to establish his innocence and that an accused person who enjoys freedom is in a much better position to look after his case and to properly defend himself than if he were in custody. The High Court had also held that it would be very unwise to make an attempt to lay down any particular rules which would bind the High Court, having regard to the fact that the legislature itself left the discretion of the Court unfettered. According to the High Court, the variety of cases that may arise from time to time cannot be safely classified an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....licant to take judgment and serve sentence in the event of the Court punishing him with imprisonment. (d) Bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. Even assuming that the accused is prima facie guilty of a grave offence, bail cannot be refused in an indirect process of punishing the accused person before he is convicted. (e) Judges have to consider applications for bail keeping passions and prejudices out of their decisions. (f) In which case bail should be granted and in which case it should be refused is a matter of discretion subject only to the restrictions contained in section 437(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. But the said discretion should be exercised judiciously. (g) The powers of the Court of Session or the High Court to grant bail under section 439(1) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 are very wide and unrestricted. The restrictions mentioned in Section 437(1) do not apply to the special powers of the High Court or the Court of Session to grant bail under Section 439(1). Unlike under Section 437(1), there is no ban imposed under Section 439(1) against granting of bail by the High Court or the Court of Session to persons accused of an offence punishable....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent for life, judicial discretion would always be exercised by the Court in favour of granting bail subject to sub-section 3 of Section 437 with regard to imposition of conditions, if necessary. Unless exceptional circumstances are brought to the notice of the Court which might defeat proper investigation and a fair trial, the Court will not decline to grant bail to a person who is not accused of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. (k) If investigation has not been completed and if the release of the accused on bail is likely to hamper the investigation, bail can be refused in order to ensure a proper and fair investigation. (l) If there are sufficient reasons to have a reasonable apprehension that the accused will flee from justice or will tamper with prosecution evidence he can be refused bail in order to ensure a fair trial of the case. (m) The Court may refuse bail if there are sufficient reasons to apprehend that the accused will repeat a serious offence if he is released on bail. (n) For the purpose of granting or refusing bail there is no classification of the offences except the ban under section 437(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 aga....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nths as on the date of passing of the order, was of the view that the further detention of the appellants as pre-trial prisoners would not serve any purpose. 28. We are conscious of the fact that the accused are charged with economic offences of huge magnitude. We are also conscious of the fact that the offences alleged, if proved, may jeopardise the economy of the country. At the same time, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the investigating agency has already completed investigation and the charge sheet is already filed before the Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi. Therefore, their presence in the custody may not be necessary for further investigation. We are of the view that the appellants are entitled to the grant of bail pending trial on stringent conditions in order to ally the apprehension expressed by CBI." 18. In Dipak Shubhashchandra Mehta's case (supra), Hon'ble the Apex Court while relying upon the judgment of Sanjay Chandra's case (supra) allowed bail in case involving economic offences of huge magnitude. This Court in Anil Kumar v. State of Punjab, 2013(3) RCR (Criminal) 854 scanned various authorities on the issue and held in favour of accused for rele....