The High Court
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 11775 of 2023 --------- Goutam Kumar @ Mithilesh Kumar Goutam, aged about 26 years, son of Late Sudhir Pandey, resident of Village-Ratanpur, P.O. and P.S. Tundi, Dist.-Dhanbad. Versus .…… Petitioner The State of Jharkhand through ACB ……. Opp. Party --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD ---------- For the Petitioner For the Opp. Party
Legal Reasoning
“It is well settled that the matters to be considered in an application for the bail are: (I) whether there is any prima-facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused has committed the offence. (II) nature and gravity of charge. (III) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction. (IV) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing if released on bail. (V) character, behavior, means, position and standing of the accused. (VI) likelihood of the offence being repeated. (VII) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with. (VIII) danger, of-course the justice being thwarted by grant of bail.” 9. Indeed, these guidelines are not exhaustive, nonetheless, these have to be considered while passing an order in a bail application in a non-bailable offence. 10. Further, it is a trite law that personal liberty is a very precious fundamental right enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India 3 and deprivation of liberty is a matter of grave concern. It should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. When a person is arrested on the allegations of commission of non-bailable offence, two conflicting interests are pitted against each other, that is, liberty of individual involved and interest of society so as to prevent crime and punish criminal. It becomes responsibility of the courts to weigh the contrary factors. The object of detaining a person in judicial custody is to direct him to join the investigation, secure his presence at trial, he may not interfere with investigation, intimidate witnesses, tamper with evidence, flee from justice, chances of repeating the offence etc., and if this purpose can be fulfilled by putting certain conditions and securing bail bonds, it would be an ideal blending of two apparently conflicting claims. 11. Further, the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial and it is neither punitive nor preventative. Reference in this regard may be taken from the judgment as rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40. For ready reference the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is being quoted herein under: “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 can be 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. 25. The provisions of Cr.P.C. confer discretionary jurisdiction on Criminal Courts to grant bail to accused pending trial or in appeal against convictions, since the jurisdiction is discretionary, it has to be exercised with great care and caution by balancing valuable right of liberty of an individual and the interest of the society in general. In our view, the reasoning adopted by the learned District Judge, which is affirmed by the High Court, in our opinion, a denial of the whole basis of our system of law and normal rule of bail system. It transcends respect for the requirement that a man shall be considered innocent until he is found guilty. If such power is recognized, then it may lead to chaotic situation and would jeopardize the personal liberty of an individual.” 12. It is evident from the ratio laid down in Sanjay Chandra’s case (supra) makes the legal provisions vis-a-vis bail, that the principle rule to guide release on bail is, “to secure the presence of accused during trial, the 4 object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative, deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, 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. 13. The law as discussed above is no longer res-integra that while considering an application for grant or refusal of bail in non-bailable offence, concept of “personal liberty” as enshrined in Article-21 of the Constitution of India is of paramount importance and in the instant case Petitioner/accused is lying in detention for the almost three months and presently is in judicial custody. 14. This Court, coming back to the instant case and taking into consideration the fact that no any amount has been recovered from the physical possession of the petitioner as also taking into consideration that the chargesheet has also been submitted, as such, is of the view that the instant bail application deserves to be allowed. 15. Accordingly, the instant bail application stands allowed. 16. In consequence thereof, the petitioner named above, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-X-cum-special Judge (Vig.), Dhanbad in connection with Special (Vigilance) P.S. Case No.11 of 2023 subject to following conditions: (i) that the petitioner/accused shall not influence the prosecution witnesses or intimidate them or dissuade them from deposing before the court. (ii) that the petitioner/accused shall appear before the trial court on each and every date of hearing during the trial except for special circumstances beyond his control. (iii) that the petitioner/accused shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court without seeking prior permission from it. 5 (iv) that in case respondent collects any material during the period the petitioner/accused is on bail that he is influencing the witnesses or has tried to intimidate them the prosecution would be within their rights to move an application before this court for cancellation of his bail. Saurabh/- (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
Arguments
: Mr. Mahesh Tiwari, Advocate : Mrs. Priya Shreshtha, Spl. PP 03/Dated: 12th January, 2023 ----------- 1. The instant application has been filed under Section 439 and 440 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in connection with Special (Vigilance) P.S. Case no.11 of 2023 for the offence under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018. 2. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that on 26.09.2023, an application was made for grant of last payment/salary certificate handed over to the Karamchari Vinay Kumar but on 29.09.2023, a complaint was made that the petitioner had made a demand but neither any date nor any time of the said demand was mentioned in the said complaint. 3. It has also been contended that on 29.09.2023, the petitioner was also not even having the file of the informant, as such, the allegation that a demand was made is completely false only with a view to settle the inimical score. 4. It has further been contended that in the first information report itself it is stated that one person was sitting on the floor who told the informant to keep the money in the lowest rack of table, neither was the money recovered from the personal possession of the petitioner, nor any demand was made by him, nor any acceptance or recovery has been made from the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted on the basis of the aforesaid fact, has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. The petitioner is having no 2 antecedent. He is languishing in judicial custody since 13.10.2023. The chargesheet has also been submitted, as such, prayer has been made that the petitioner may be enlarged the privilege of bail. 6. While on the other hand, Mrs. Priya Shreshtha, learned Special Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. 7. It has been submitted by referring to impugned order that seizure of the cash has been made from 3rd shelf of the drawer of the table of the accused Goutam Kumar @ Mithilesh Kumar Goutam and there is complete material for demand of Rs.20,000/- which has been accepted by the accused and caught red handed from this table. Therefore, it has been submitted that there is sufficient material against the petitioner of involvement in the said occurrence. 8. Before adverting into the fact of the case, it is relevant to mention here the parameter of granting or not granting bai in the non-bailable offences. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of U.P. vs. Amarmani Tripathy, 2005 (8) SCC 21 and Sudha Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another,(2021) 4 SCC 781 has culled out certain factors to be taken into consideration while deciding bail application in non-bailable offences as under: