TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 176
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Notice on this petition was issued on 06.12.2024; pursuant to which Status Report dated 20.01.2025 has been filed on behalf of the State. Reply dated 03.02.2025 has also been filed on behalf of the Customs Department - the complainant in the subject FIR. 4. Nominal Roll dated 20.01.2025 has been received from the concerned Jail Superintendent. 5. The court has heard Mr. Tanveer Ahmed Mir, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner; Mr. Tarang Srivastava, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State; as well as Mr. Satish Aggarwala, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant at length. 6. Written synopses have also been filed on behalf of the petitioner as well the State. BRIEF FACTS 7. Briefly, the present case arises from an alleged criminal conspiracy between one Jayanta Ghosh, a former employee of the Customs Department; co-accused Vijay Singh, a data entry operator with the Customs Department; and co-accused Deepesh Chamoli, who was employed as Senior Manager at the Punjab National Bank, Sansad Marg, New Delhi. The allegation is that the criminal conspiracy was hatched with the intention of cheating the Customs Depar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he petitioner was transferred back to Jayanta Ghosh through various other entities held by the latter and his family members. 9.4. It has been submitted that the extended period of the petitioner's incarceration as an undertrial is violative of his right to speedy trial enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Mir has pointed-out that the petitioner has already suffered judicial custody for about 13 months as an undertrial for offences which, as could be alleged against the petitioner, are punishable by only upto 07 years. 9.5. In this behalf, learned senior counsel has also drawn attention to the fact that chargesheet in the matter already stands filed on 12.01.2024, in which the prosecution has cited 49 witnesses; and that the chargesheet refers to some 10,000 pages of documentary evidence. It has also been pointed-out that as per the prosecution, further investigation into the matter is still going-on and other entities within the Customs Department are also investigating similar incidents. It is submitted that clearly therefore, trial in the matter would not be concluded in the near future. 9.6. In support of the his submissions Mr. M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng on behalf of the State has made the following submissions : 10.1. It has been argued that the petitioner should not be admitted to regular bail since he is one of the accused in a large-scale economic offence concerning the Customs Department, which is against the economic interests of the State involving misappropriation and cheating of large amounts of public money. 10.2. It has been submitted that the very nature of the offence shows that the petitioner committed it with full calculation and with prior meeting of the minds with other co-accused persons, to cause wrongful loss of crores to the exchequer. 10.3. Furthermore, learned APP has argued that considering the nature of the crime, there is real apprehension that if admitted to regular bail, the petitioner would tamper with the evidence and suborn or intimidate witnesses. 10.4. Insofar as the ground of parity with other co-accused persons to whom bail has been granted is concerned, it has been submitted that the petitioner's role is significantly different from those co-accused persons. In this behalf, learned APP has submitted, that based on the evidence that has come on record so far,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mmence. 12.4. The petitioner's nominal roll shows that he has already suffered judicial custody for about 13 months. However, regardless of the maximum punishment prescribed for the offences alleged against the petitioner, the court must never lose sight of the fact that, as of now, the petitioner is only an accused pending trial and has not been held guilty for any offences as of date. As argued on behalf of the petitioner, he cannot be detained in custody endlessly awaiting completion of trial. 13. On point of law, a quick overview of the principles of bail jurisprudence laid-down by the Supreme Court may be made at this juncture : 13.1. An undertrial is required to post bail in order to secure his presence at the trial, for which purpose an undertrial is handed-over from the custody of the court to the custody of an appropriate surety. 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. [Sunil Fulchand Shah vs. Union of India, (2000) 3 SCC 409, para 24 quoting Halsbury's Laws of Engl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unity' in 1940, to highlight the dangers of unjust imprisonment. Quoting the author and a decision of the Kerala High Court A Convict Prisoner vs. State, 1993 SCC OnLine Ker 127, the Supreme Court has flagged the risk of 'prisonisation', that is the risk of an undertrial losing his identity; coming to be known only by a number; losing his personal possessions and personal relationships; status, dignity and autonomy over his personal life, all of which affects his self-perception. It has also been highlighted that if an undertrial belongs to the weaker economic strata of society, imprisonment leads to immediate loss of livelihood, scattering of families and alienation from society. The Supreme Court has observed that the courts must be sensitive to these aspects, since in the event of acquittal, these losses would be irreparable. 13.7. 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. The right to speedy trial is the flip-side of the presumption of innocence. It has been held that the right to speedy trial is implicit in the broad-sweep of A....