TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (9) TMI 2053
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the complainant party which does not attract the criminal liability and cannot form the basis of criminal prosecution. The petitioner was working as an agent of Ram Dev International Limited, Karnal and any lapse on behalf of the principal, the agent cannot be held vicarious liable and no criminal liability can be fastened upon him. The allegations in the present case are that the paddy was procured but the payment was not forwarded to the commission agents and the amount was misappropriated by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that it is clear from the Bank Account statements of the petitioner's firm that the amount was disbursed in the year 2013-14 and 2014-15 to the commission agents. The petitioner received only 48,00,000/- in his bank account, out of which, Rs. 17,00,000/- was disbursed to various commission agents, which is clear from the statements of witnesses recorded under section 161 of Cr.P.C., 1973 At the end, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the bail petition filed by the petitioner before the Sessions Court, it has not taken into consideration that earlier bail application was withdrawn as the charges were not fram....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at area used to sell their agricultural produce through them in the market. Accused Naresh Kumar and Suresh Kumar had set up a company in the name and style of Ram Dev International Limited, Karnal and said persons were the Directors. They were also having a rice mill at Karnal and used to prepare the rice from the paddy after purchasing the same from surrounding market and used to export rice. The present petitioner has been alleged to have a firm in the name and style of M/s. Devi Sahai Ruli Ram and used to do the work of commission agent. As per allegations, the petitioner had approached the complainants and other commission agents in the month of October 2014 stating that Ram Dev International Limited, Karnal has appointed the petitioner as their agent to procure the paddy from Commission Agents of Grain Market at Julana on behalf of the company. It was further alleged that a huge quantity of paddy was purchased during the period of October 2014 to January 2015 and the amount of Rs. 10,60,784/- was due towards complainant-Inderjit Singh and Rs. 23,75,246/- was due towards complainant-Ram Parkash and approximately Rs. 6 crores was pending towards all the commission agents agains....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s 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 un-convicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, "necessity" is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances. 23. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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." 11. 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 report as follows:- "7. A plain reading of the above decision makes it crystal clear that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial. It is further observed that the object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative and that deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment unless it is required to ensure that the accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The Supreme Court further observed that when a person is punished by denial of bail in respect of any matter upon which he has not been convicted it would be contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution except in cases where there is reason to believe that he will tamper with the witnesses. To encapsulate, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 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. 15. The principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Gurcharan Singh and Others v. State (Delhi Administration) AIR 1978 Supreme Court 179 were followed by the Supreme Court in Miss Harsh Sawhney v. Union Territory reported in AIR 1978 SCC 1016 and in Mohan Singh v. Union Territory, Chandigarh. In Mohan Singh v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, reported in AIR 1978 Supreme Court 1095, even though the counsel for the State argued that the corruption of which the accused was prima facie guilty was substantial, the Supreme Court held that it was not sufficient reason to refuse bail. In paragraph 2 of the said judgment the Supreme Court held thus:- "Counsel for the State pressed before us that the corruption of which the appellant was guilty prima facie according to the results of the investigation) was substantial. Let us assume so. Even then refusal of bail is not an indirect process ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 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 and it is dangerous to make an attempt to classify the cases and to say that in particular classes bail may be granted but not in other classes. The Supreme Court apparently approved the above views and observations and held (vide paragraph 30) as follows: "It is thus clear that the question whether to grant bail or not depends for its answer upon a variety of in circumstances, the cumulative effect of which must enter into the judicial verdict. Any one single circumstance cannot be treated as of universal validity or as necessarily justifying the grant or refusal of bail." 17. In State v. Jaspal Singh Gill, reported in AIR 1984 Supreme Court 1503, the Supreme Court expressed the view that the Court before granting bail in cases involving non-bailable offences particularly whe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 with death or imprisonment for life. However while considering an application for all under Section 439(1), the High Court or the Court of Sessions will have to exercise its judicial discretion also bearing in mind, among other things, the rationale behind the ban imposed under Section 437(1) against granting bail to persons accused of offences punishable with death or imprisonment for life. (h) There is no hard and fast rule and no inflexible principle governing the exercise of such discretion by the Courts. There cannot be an inexorable formula in the matter of granting bail. The facts and circumstances of each case will govern the exercise of judicial discretion in granting or refusing bail. The answer to the question whether to grant bail or not depends upon a variety....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ith 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 against grant of bail in the case of offences punishable with death or life imprisonment. Hence there is no statutory support or justification for classifying offences into different categories such as economic offences and for refusing bail on the ground that the offence involved belongs to a particular category. When the Court has been granted discretion in the matter of granting bail and when there is no statute prescribing a special treatment in the case of a particular offence the Court cannot classify the cases and say that in particular classes bail may be granted but not in others. Not only in the case of economic offences but also in the case of other offences the Court will have to consider the larger interest of the public or the State. Hence only the considerations w....