Himachal Pradesh High Court
Date Of Decision: 29.8.2024 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 29 August, 2024
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
2024:HHC:7674
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
.
Cr.MP(M) No. 886 of 2024
Date of Decision: 29.8.2024
________________________________________________________________
Mohit Bansal
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh
.......Respondent
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? Yes
For the petitioner: Ms. Shradha Karol, Mr. Sarthak Karol, Ms.
Neelakshi Bhadauria, Mr. Nishant Singh, Mr.
r Vaibhav Singh Chauhan, Ms. Aastha Kohli,
Advocates.
For the Respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.
Verma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi
Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General.
___________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
Bail petitioner namely Mohit Bansal, who is behind the bars since 22.11.2022, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 439 of Cr.PC, for grant of regular bail in complaint case under Section 18 (A) (I) read with Sections 17 & 17B, 18 (A)(VI), 18 (C) read with Rule 62 D and 22 (3), punishable under Sections 27 (C), 27 (D), 27 (B) (II) and Section 22 (3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and Rules 1945, on the ground of delay in conclusion of trial.
::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2024 20:34:55 :::CIS2 2024:HHC:7674
2. Respondent-State has filed the status report and Sh. Abhilash .
Kumar, Drugs Inspector, O/o the State Drugs Controller, HQ at Baddi, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, has also come present with record.
Record perused and returned.
3. Close scrutiny of status report/record reveals that on 21.11.2022, Drug Inspector of the area concerned after having received secrete information that bail petitioner indulges in illegal manufacturing and selling of spurious drugs, conducted raid at plot No.29, near Jayanti Chowk, DIC Baddi, Solan, where Godown of M/s Trizal Formulations was found to be locked. Allegedly, after having seen team of the Drug Inspector, people present in the godown, closed the shutter. However on 22.11.2022, bail petitioner was seen transporting some cartons from his godown i.e. shop No. 13, Mansa Devi Complex, Near Sikka Hotel, Baddi, Solan, in a Creta Car bearing registration No. UP 80F 7530 and as such, afore car was intercepted by the team of Drug Inspectors, who subsequently, on search, conducted in presence of the police personnel and independent witnesses recovered huge quantity of spurious drugs. Drug Inspector of the area concerned summoned the representatives of M/s USV Ltd. and Ms. Cipla Ltd., under whose trade mark, drugs allegedly recovered from the vehicle of the bail petitioner, were being manufactured and sold. Representatives of ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2024 20:34:55 :::CIS 3 2024:HHC:7674 the aforesaid companies after having checked the medicines recovered from .
the vehicle of the petitioner disclosed that those medicines have not been manufactured by the respective companies, rather these are superior drugs.
4. After having noticed the aforesaid illegality, Drug Inspector of the area concerned again raided the godown of the bail petitioner and recovered huge quantity of medicines namely MONTAIR, Atorva 10 tablets, Roseday and ZERODOL TH4. During investigation, bail petitioner disclosed that godown is owned by him jointly with Idreesh Mohammad, who at the relevant time was not present, but was subsequently associated in the investigation. Person namely Atul Gupta, who is brother in law of the present bail petitioner alongwith Vijay Kaushal was also found involved in the illegal activity of the manufacturing and selling of spurious/fake drugs.
Drug Inspector of the area concerned drew samples of the medicines concerned and sent the same for chemical analysis. Allegedly, bail petitioner disclosed that Mohammad Idreesh provided raw material for manufacturing of superior drugs. He also allegedly disclosed names of medical stores where he used to sell the spurious allopathic medicines i.e. M/s MH Pharma situate at Agra. In the aforesaid background bail petitioner alongwith other co-accused Atul Gupa and Vijay Kaushal was ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2024 20:34:55 :::CIS 4 2024:HHC:7674 arrested on 22.11.202 at PS Baddi for contravention of Sections 18(c) and .
18 (a) (i) read with Sections 17-B and 36-AC of the Act.
5. Though after completion of the investigation, police presented challan in the competent court of law, but till date, charges have not been framed and as such, bail petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of bail on the ground of inordinate delay in conclusion of the trial.
6. While fairly admitting factum with regard to filing of challan in the competent court of law, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General states that though nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner at this stage, but keeping in view the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by him, he does not deserve any leniency. While making this Court peruse status report as well as record, learned Additional Advocate General contends that there is overwhelming evidence adduced on record suggestive of the fact that bail petitioner had been indulging in illegal trade of spurious/fake medicines. Mr. Kahol, states that material adduced on record further reveals that illegal activities of the present bail petitioner were not limited to State of Himachal Pradesh, rather he had been manufacturing and selling the spurious /fake drugs in other parts of the country, especially UP. Mr. Kahol, states that number of ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2024 20:34:55 :::CIS 5 2024:HHC:7674 reputed companies in pharmaceutical sector have come forward to lodge .
complaint against the illegal manufacturing and selling of the spurious drugs in the name of their respective companies. He further states that by manufacturing and selling the spurious/fake drugs, bail petitioner alongwith other co-accused have put lives of thousands of people in danger and recently samples of number of drug manufacturers in Baddi area have failed, as a result thereof, State of Himachal Pradesh is on the verge of losing further investment in Pharma Sector by the big companies. Lastly, Mr. Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states that since bail petitioner is involved in illegal trade of drugs, it may not be in the interest of justice to enlarge him on bail, because in that event, he may not only flee from justice, but would again indulge in these activities. He states that in past, one case under Section 411 of the IPC stands registered against the petitioner for his having allegedly purchased spurious drugs.
7. To the contrary, Mr. Sarthak Karol, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, while refuting the aforesaid submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General contends that petitioner has been falsely implicated. He states that mere confiscation of drugs, if any, from the vehicle and godown of the petitioner may not be sufficient to conclude his guilt, rather for that purpose, prosecution is under obligation to prove ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2024 20:34:55 :::CIS 6 2024:HHC:7674 by leading cogent and convincing evidence that drugs allegedly recovered .
from the car and godown of the petitioner were actually manufactured by the company being run by the petitioner in the name of M/s Trizal Formulations. Mr. Karol states that though case registered against the petitioner shall be decided by the court below in the totality of evidence collected on record by the prosecution, but this court cannot lose sight of the fact that bail petitioner is behind the bars for more than one year and ten months, as a result thereof, his freedom is being curtailed for an indefinite period despite being not guilty. He states that in the case at hand, prosecution with a view to prove its case has proposed to examine 80 witnesses, but till date, charge has not been framed, meaning thereby, considerable time is likely to be consumed in conclusion of the trial and if during this period, petitioner is made to live behind the bars, it would also not only amount to pre-trial conviction, but would also amount to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India
8. While referring to the various judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that repeatedly, Hon'ble Apex Court has asked the high courts as well as trial courts to consider the prayer, if any, made by the under trials for bail on the ground of inordinate delay in conclusion of the trial. While referring to the recent ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2024 20:34:55 :::CIS 7 2024:HHC:7674 judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Manish Sisodia v.
.
Enforcement Directorate, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1920, Mr. Sarthak Karol, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the aforesaid case, Hon'ble Apex Court proceeded to grant bail to the accused on the ground of delay in conclusion of trial in cases where cases were registered under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. He also referred to the judgment passed by the Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1945, to state that Hon'ble Apex Court has granted bail on the ground of inordinate delay in conclusion of trial in cases registered under unlawful activates (Prevention Act, 1967). He states that offence, if any, committed by the petitioner is not so heinous that prayer made on his behalf for grant of bail cannot be considered, especially when there is nothing on record to suggest that in the event of his being enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice and indulge in these activities again. He states that on two occasions, bail petitioner was enlarged on temporary bail, enabling him to attend upon his ailing mother, but every time, he surrendered on or before the date fixed by this Court, which act of his clearly suggests that he is a law abiding citizen and shall always remain available for trial as and when called by the investigating agency or competent court of law.
::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2024 20:34:55 :::CIS8 2024:HHC:7674
9. Having heard the learned counsel representing the parties and .
perused material available on record, this court finds that on 21/22.11.2022, a team of Drug Inspector, in the presence of police as well as other independent witnesses recovered spurious/fake drugs from the car as well as godown of the petitioner and as such, this Court is not persuaded to agree with learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated. However, having taken note of the fact that bail petitioner is behind bars for more than one year and ten months, coupled with the fact that till date, competent court of law has not been able to frame charge, prayer made by the petitioner for grant of bail on the ground of delay in conclusion of trial, deserves to be considered. Though learned Additional Advocate General argued that keeping in view the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, prayer made on his behalf for grant of bail deserves to be rejected, but by now it is well settled that gravity of offence is not a sole criteria for considering prayer, if any, made for grant of bail, rather other competing factors are also required to be taken into consideration. No doubt, offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner is serious in nature having adverse impact on the society, but same is yet to be proved by the prosecution by leading cogent and convincing evidence.
::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2024 20:34:55 :::CIS9 2024:HHC:7674
10. Bail petitioner is behind bars for considerable time and at this .
stage, there is nothing on record to suggest that trial commenced against the petitioner is likely to be concluded in a reasonable time, rather after having taken note of the fact that charge is yet to be framed, this court has reason to presume and believe that at least 4-5 years are likely to be consumed for the disposal of the case. In case, bail petitioner is left to incarcerate in jail for an indefinite period during trial, it would not only amount to pre-trial conviction, but would also be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
11. By now, it is well settled that speedy trial is fundamental right of the accused and one cannot be made to suffer indefinitely for delay in trial and as such, this Court sees no reason to keep the bail petitioner behind the bars for indefinite period during trial. Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled Umarmia Alias Mamumia v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 2 SCC 731, has held delay in criminal trial to be in violation of right guaranteed to an accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Relevant para of the afore judgment reads as under:-
"11. This Court has consistently recognised the right of the accused for a speedy trial. Delay in criminal trial has been held to be in violation of the right guaranteed to an accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. (See: Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 731; Shaheen Welfare Assn. v. Union ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2024 20:34:55 :::CIS 10 2024:HHC:7674 of India, (1996) 2 SCC 616) Accused, even in cases under TADA, have .
been released on bail on the ground that they have been in jail for a long period of time and there was no likelihood of the completion of the trial at the earliest. (See: Paramjit Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (1999) 9 SCC 252 and Babba v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 11 SCC
569).
12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, passed in Criminal Appeal No.2787 of 2024, decided on 03.07.2024, having taken note of its various judgments passed in the past, proceeded to conclude that if the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Most importantly, in the afore judgment, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime. Relevant paras of the afore judgment read as under:
"15. The requirement of law as being envisaged under Section 19 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (hereinafter being referred to as "the 2008 Act") mandates that the trial under the Act of any offence by a Special Court shall be held on day-to-day basis on all working days and have precedence over the trial of any other case and Special Courts are to be designated for such an offence by the Central Government in ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2024 20:34:55 :::CIS 11 2024:HHC:7674 consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court as contemplated .
under Section 11 of the 2008.
16. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb reported in (2021) 3 SCC 713] had an occasion to consider the long incarceration and at the same time the effect of Section 43-D(5) of the UAP Act and observed as under : (SCC p. 722, para 17) "17. It is thus clear to us that the presence of statutory restrictions like Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA per se does not oust the ability of the constitutional courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of Part III of the Constitution. Indeed,both the restrictions under a statute as well as the powers exercisable under constitutional jurisdiction can be well harmonised. Whereas at commencement of proceedings,the courts are expected to appreciate the legislative policy against grant of bail but the rigours of such provisions will melt down where there is no likelihood of trial being completed within a reasonable time and the period of incarceration already undergone has exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence. Such an approach would safe-guard against the possibility of provisions like Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA being used as the sole metric for denial of bail or for wholesale breach of constitutional right to speedy trial."
17. In the recent decision, Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51, prolonged incarceration and inordinate delay engaged the attention of the court, which considered the correct approach towards bail, with respect to several enactments, including Section 37 NDPS Act. The court expressed the opinion that Section 436A (which requires inter alia the accused to be enlarged on bail if the trial is not concluded within specified periods) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973would apply:
"We do not wish to deal with individual enactments as each special Act has got an objective behind it, followed by the rigour imposed. The general principle governing delay would apply to these categories also. To make it clear, the provision contained in Section ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2024 20:34:55 :::CIS 12 2024:HHC:7674 436-A of the Code would apply to the Special Acts also in the .
absence of any specific provision. For example, the rigour as provided under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not come in the way in such a case as we are dealing with the liberty of a person. We do feel that more the rigour, the quicker the adjudication ought to be. After all, in these types of cases number of witnesses would be very less and there may not be any justification for prolonging the trial. Perhaps there is a need to comply with the directions of this Court to expedite the process and also a stricter compliance of Section 309 of the Code."
18. Criminals are not born out but made. The human potential in everyone is good and so, never write off any criminal as beyond redemption. This humanist fundamental is often missed when dealing with delinquents,juvenile and adult. Indeed, every saint has a past and every sinner a future. When a crime is committed, a variety of factors is responsible for making the offender commit the crime. Those factors may be social and economic, maybe, the result of value erosion or parental neglect; may be, because of the stress of circumstances, or the manifestation of temptations in a milieu of affluence contrasted with indigence or other privations.
19. If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious.
Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime. 20 We may hasten to add that the petitioner is still an accused; not a convict. The over-arching postulate of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty cannot be brushed aside lightly, howsoever stringent the penal law may be. 21 We are convinced that the manner in which the prosecuting agency as well as the Court have proceeded, the right of the accused to have a speedy ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2024 20:34:55 :::CIS 13 2024:HHC:7674 trial could be said to have been infringed thereby violating Article 21 of the .
Constitution."
13. Recently, Hon'ble Apex Court in Manish Sisodia v.
Enforcement Directorate, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1920 while placing reliance upon its earlier judgments rendered in number of cases, especially Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh (supra), again reiterated that right to speedy trial is a fundamental right of an accused and infraction thereof amounts to violation of Arctile 21 of the Constitution of India. Relevant paras of the judgment passed in Manish Sisodia case read as under:
" 50. As observed by this Court, the right to speedy trial and the right to liberty are sacrosanct rights. On denial of these rights, the trial court as well as the High Court ought to have given due weightage to this factor.
51. Recently, this Court had an occasion to consider an application for bail in the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra wherein the accused was prosecuted under the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. This Court surveyed the entire law right from the judgment of this Court in the cases of Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, Hussainara Khatoon (I) v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb and Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation. The Court observed thus:
"19. If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2024 20:34:55 :::CIS
14 2024:HHC:7674 any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for .
bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime."
52. The Court also reproduced the observations made in Gudikanti Narasimhulu (supra), which read thus:
"10. In the aforesaid context, we may remind the trial courts and the High Courts of what came to be observed by this Court in Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor, High Court reported in (1978) 1 SCC 240. We quote:
"What is often forgotten, and therefore warrants reminder, is the object to keep a person in judicial custody pending trial or disposal of an appeal. Lord Russel, C.J., said [R v.
Rose, (1898) 18 Cox]:
"I observe that in this case bail was refused for the prisoner. It cannot be too strongly impressed on the, magistracy of the country that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment, but that the requirements as to bail are merely to secure the attendance of the prisoner at trial."
53. The Court further observed that, over a period of time, the trial courts and the High Courts have forgotten a very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. From our experience, we can say that it appears that the trial courts and the High Courts attempt to play safe in matters of grant of bail. The principle that bail is a rule and refusal is an exception is, at times, followed in breach. On account of non-grant of bail even in straight forward open and shut cases, this Court is flooded with huge number of bail petitions thereby adding to the huge pendency. It is high time that the trial courts and the High Courts should recognize the principle that "bail is rule and jail is exception".
::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2024 20:34:55 :::CIS15 2024:HHC:7674
54. In the present case, in the ED matter as well as the CBI matter, .
493 witnesses have been named. The case involves thousands of pages of documents and over a lakh pages of digitized documents. It is thus clear that there is not even the remotest possibility of the trial being concluded in the near future. In our view, keeping the appellant behind the bars for an unlimited period of time in the hope of speedy completion of trial would deprive his fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. As observed time and again, the prolonged incarceration before being pronounced guilty of an offence should not be permitted to become punishment without trial."
14. Reliance is also placed upon judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1945, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with a case registered under Sections 13, 18, 18A, and 20 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, enlarged the accused on bail on the ground of inordinate delay in conclusion of trial. Relevant para of the afore judgment is reproduced herein below:
"21. Before we part with the Judgment, we must mention here that the Special Court and the High Court did not consider the material in the charge sheet objectively. Perhaps the focus was more on the activities of PFI, and therefore, the appellant's case could not be properly appreciated. When a case is made out for a grant of bail, the Courts should not have any hesitation in granting bail. The allegations of the prosecution may be very serious. But, the duty of the Courts is to consider the case for grant of bail in accordance with ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2024 20:34:55 :::CIS 16 2024:HHC:7674 the law. "Bail is the rule and jail is an exception" is a settled law.
.
Even in a case like the present case where there are stringent conditions for the grant of bail in the relevant statutes, the same rule holds good with only modification that the bail can be granted if the conditions in the statute are satisfied. The rule also means that once a case is made out for the grant of bail, the Court cannot decline to grant bail. If the Courts start denying bail in deserving cases, it will be a violation of the rights guaranteed under Article 21 of our Constitution."
15. Reliance is also placed upon latest judgment dated 28.8.2024, passed in Prem Prakash v. Union of India through The Directorate of Enforcement, (Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5416 of 2024), wherein having taken note of the inordinate delay in conclusion of trial, Hon'ble Apex Court proceeded to enlarge the accused on bail. Relevant para of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:
"12. Independently and as has been emphatically reiterated in Manish Sisodia (II) (supra) relying on Ramkripal Meena Vs Directorate of Enforcement (SLP (Crl.) No. 3205 of 2024 dated 30.07.2024) and Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, 2024 SCC online 1693, where the accused has already been in custody for a considerable number of months and there being no likelihood of conclusion of trial within a short span, the rigours of Section 45 of PMLA can be suitably relaxed to afford conditional liberty. Further, Manish Sisodia (II) (supra) reiterated the holding in Javed Gulam Nabi Sheikh (Supra), that keeping persons behind the bars for unlimited periods of time in the hope of speedy completion of trial would deprive the fundamental ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2024 20:34:55 :::CIS 17 2024:HHC:7674 right of persons under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and that .
prolonged incarceration before being pronounced guilty ought not to be permitted to become the punishment without trial. In fact, Manish Sisodia (II) (Supra) reiterated the holding in Manish Sisodia (I) Vs. Directorate of Enforcement (judgment dated 30.10.2023 in Criminal Appeal No. 3352 of 2023) where it was held as under:-
"28. Detention or jail before being pronounced guilty of an offence should not become punishment without trial. If the trial gets protracted despite assurances of the prosecution, and it is clear that case will not be decided within a foreseeable time, the prayer for bail may be meritorious. While the prosecution may pertain to an economic offence, yet it may not be proper to equate these cases with those punishable with death, imprisonment for life, ten years or more like offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, murder, cases of rape, dacoity, kidnaping for ransom, mass violence, etc. Neither is this a case where 100/1000s of depositors have been defrauded. The allegations have to be established and proven. The right to bail in cases of delay, coupled with incarceration for a long period, depending on the nature of the allegations, should be read into Section 439 of the Code and Section 45 of the PML Act. The reason is that the constitutional mandate is the higher law, and it is the basic right of the person charged of an offence and not convicted, that he be ensured and given a speedy trial. When the trial is not proceeding for reasons not attributable to the accused, the court, unless there are good reasons, may well be guided to exercise the power to grant bail. This would be truer where the trial would take years."::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2024 20:34:55 :::CIS
18 2024:HHC:7674 It is in this background that Section 45 of PMLA needs to be .
understood and applied. Article 21 being a higher constitutional right, statutory provisions should align themselves to the said higher constitutional edict."
16. In the aforesaid judgment, Hon'ble Apex Court having taken note of all judgments passed in recent times, categorically held that bail is rule and jail is an exception. If all the judgments taken note herein above are read in conjunction, Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that court while considering prayer for grant of bail may not be impressed with the arguments advanced by the prosecution that charge against the person seeking bail is serious, but in case, court finds that on account of inordinate delay in conclusion of trial of the trial, fundamental right of speedy trial is being violated, it should proceed to grant bail. No doubt, in the case at hand, charge against the petitioner is serious, but there is no denial to the fact that bail petitioner is languishing in jail for one year and ten months despite his not being held guilty, rather charge against him, if any, is yet to be framed by the competent court of law.
17. Though case at hand is to be decided by the court below in totality of evidence collected on record, but having taken note of the aforesaid glaring aspects of the matter, this Court sees no reason to curtail the freedom of the petitioner for an indefinite period during trial, conclusion whereof is likely to take considerable time.
::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2024 20:34:55 :::CIS19 2024:HHC:7674
18. Repeatedly, it has been held that one is deemed to be innocent .
till the time guilt, if any, of his/her is not proved in accordance with law. In the case at hand also, guilt, if any, of the accused is yet to be proved in accordance with law, by leading cogent and convincing material on record.
Apprehension expressed by the learned Additional Advocate General that in the event of petitioner's being enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice, can be best met by putting the bail petitioner to stringent conditions as has been fairly stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
19. Needless to say, object of the bail is to secure the attendance of the accused in the trial and the proper test to be applied in the solution of the question whether bail should be granted or refused is whether it is probable that the party will appear to take his trial. Otherwise, bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. Otherwise also, normal rule is of bail and not jail. Court has to keep in mind nature of accusations, nature of evidence in support thereof, severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused involved in that crime.
20. Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 227/2018, Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr decided on 6.2.2018 has held that freedom of an individual cannot be curtailed for indefinite period, ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2024 20:34:55 :::CIS 20 2024:HHC:7674 especially when his/her guilt is yet to be proved. It has been further held by .
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty.
21. Hon'ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra versus Central Bureau of Investigation (2012)1 Supreme Court Cases 49 has held that gravity alone cannot be a decisive ground to deny bail, rather competing factors are required to be balanced by the court while exercising its discretion. It has been repeatedly held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that 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.
22. In Manoranjana Sinh alias Gupta versus CBI, (2017) 5 SCC 218, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the object of the bail is to secure the attendance of the accused in the trial and the proper test to be applied in the solution of the question whether bail should be granted or refused is whether it is probable that the party will appear to take his trial. Otherwise also, normal rule is of bail and not jail. Apart from above, Court has to keep in mind nature of accusations, nature of evidence in support thereof, severity of the punishment, which conviction will entail, character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused involved in that crime.
::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2024 20:34:55 :::CIS21 2024:HHC:7674
23. The Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus Ashis .
Chatterjee and another (2010) 14 SCC 496, has laid down various principles to be kept in mind, while deciding petition for bail viz. prima facie case, nature and gravity of accusation, punishment involved, apprehension of repetition of offence and witnesses being influenced.
24. In view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, bail petitioner has carved out a case for grant of bail. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in aforesaid FIR, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- with two local sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/trial Court, with following conditions:
(a) He shall make himself available for the purpose of interrogation, if so required and regularly attend the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so, seek exemption from appearance by filing appropriate application;
(b) He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever;
(c) He shall not make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer; and
(d) He shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court.
(e) He shall also handover his passport to the investigating agency.::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2024 20:34:55 :::CIS
22 2024:HHC:7674
25. It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses the liberty or violates .
any of the conditions imposed upon him, the investigating agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail.
26. Any observations made hereinabove shall not be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case and shall remain confined to the disposal of this application alone. The petition stands accordingly disposed of.
27. The bail petitioner is permitted to produce copy of the order downloaded from the High Court Website and the trial court shall not insist for certified copy of the order, however, it may verify the order from the High Court website or otherwise.
August 29, 2024 ( Sandeep Sharma ),
(manjit) Judge
::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2024 20:34:55 :::CIS