Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.25 seconds)Sanjay Chandra vs Cbi on 23 November, 2011
In Sanjay Chandra's case (supra),
the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that it is not in the interest of justice
that accused should be in jail for an indefinite period. No doubt, the
offence alleged against the accused is a serious one in terms of
13 of 16
::: Downloaded on - 22-03-2020 10:49:48 :::
CRM-M No.2163 of 2020(O&M), CRM-M Nos.34448, 20009 and 21121 of 2019(O&M) 14
alleged huge loss to the State exchequer, that, by itself, should not
deter the Court from enlarging the accused on bail when there is no
serious contention of the State that the accused, if released on bail,
would interfere with the trial or tamper with evidence. The Hon'ble
Apex Court also relied upon 'Bihar Fodder Scam' to observe that
bail was granted after considering the seriousness of the charges
alleged and maximum sentence of imprisonment that could be
imposed including the fact that the accused were in jail for a period
of more than six months as on the date of passing of the order in
that case.
Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth vs State Of Gujarat & Anr on 1 September, 2015
Since the object of the
detention or imprisonment of the accused is to secure his
appearance and submission to the jurisdiction and judgment of the
Court, a primary inquiry is whether bond would effect that end.
[13]. By referring to the aforesaid, learned Senior Counsel
contended that heavy conditions can be imposed while releasing the
petitioner on regular bail. He further submitted that same principle
has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra
Vs. CBI, 2012(1) SCC 40, Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth Vs. State of
Gujarat and another, (2016) 1 SCC 152, Bhagirrathsinh Vs. State
of Gujarat, (1984) 1 SCC 284 and Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of
Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273.
P. Chidambaram vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 5 September, 2019
Learned Senior counsel also referred to
Criminal Appeal No.1831 of 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.
(Criminal) No.10493 of 2019) titled P.Chidambaram Vs.
Directorate of Enforcement decided on 04.12.2019.
[14]. By referring to the aforesaid judgments, learned Senior
Counsel contended that basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains
the same inasmuch as the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the
11 of 16
::: Downloaded on - 22-03-2020 10:49:48 :::
CRM-M No.2163 of 2020(O&M), CRM-M Nos.34448, 20009 and 21121 of 2019(O&M) 12
exception so as to ensure that the accused has the opportunity of
securing fair trial. However, while considering the same, the gravity
of the offence is an aspect which is required to be kept in view by
the Court. The gravity for the said purpose will have to be gathered
from the facts and circumstances arising in each case. Keeping in
view the consequences that would befall on the society in cases of
financial irregularities, it has been held that even economic offences
would fall under the category of "grave offence" and in such
circumstances, while considering the application for bail, the Court
will have to deal with the same, being sensitive to the nature of
allegation made against the accused. One of the circumstances to
consider the gravity of the offence is also the term of sentence that
is prescribed for the offence the accused is alleged to have
committed. Such consideration with regard to the gravity of offence
is a factor which is in addition to the triple test or the tripod test that
would be normally applied. In that regard what is also to be kept in
perspective is that even if the allegation is one of grave economic
offence, it is not a rule that bail should be denied in every case since
there is no such bar created in the relevant enactment passed by
the legislature nor does the bail jurisprudence provides so.
Therefore, the underlining conclusion is that irrespective of the
nature and gravity of charge, the precedent of another case alone
will not be the basis for either grant or refusal of bail though it may
have a bearing on principle. But ultimately the conclusion will have
12 of 16
::: Downloaded on - 22-03-2020 10:49:48 :::
CRM-M No.2163 of 2020(O&M), CRM-M Nos.34448, 20009 and 21121 of 2019(O&M) 13
to be on case to case basis on the facts involved therein and
securing the presence of the accused to stand trial.
[15]. Learned Senior Counsel for Daman Bhalla @ Lucky
further submitted that the bail can be granted to the accused on
stringent conditions including deposit of his passport and heavy bail
bonds and surety bonds in order to ensure his presence before the
trial Court. Since the challan has been presented, therefore, there is
no possibility of tempering with the evidence.
D.K. Shivakumar vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 23 October, 2019
[17]. Learned Senior Counsel also referred to Bail
Application No.2484 of 2019, Crl. M.A. No.37260 of 2019 and Crl.
M.A. No.38212 of 2019 titled D.K. Shivakumar Vs. Directorate of
Enforcement decided by the Delhi High Court vide order dated
23.10.2019 and contended that said judgment has been upheld by
the Hon'ble Apex Court.
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Paramjit Singh @ Mithu Singh vs State Of Punjab Through Secretary ... on 31 October, 2007
[1]. Vide this common order, CRM-M No.2163 of 2020 titled
Daman Bhalla @ Lucky Vs. State of Punjab, CRM-M No.34448 of
2019 titled Teena Vohra @ Teena Sharma Vs. State of Punjab,
CRM-M No.20009 of 2019 titled Dayal Chand Garg @ DC Garg Vs.
State of Punjab and CRM-M No.21121 of 2019 titled Paramjit Singh
Vs. State of Punjab are being disposed of. Since all the cases have
arisen from one FIR, therefore, common facts are being noticed.
[2]. Prayer is for grant of regular bail under Section 439
Cr.P.C in case bearing FIR No.450 dated 09.09.2017 registered
under Sections 7, 13(1), 13(1)(a), 13(1)(b), 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of
the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 409, 420, 467, 468,
471, 120-B IPC at Police Station Civil Lines, Police
Commissionerate Amritsar.