Smt. Minu Rani Das v. The State of Tripura

Heard Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Bibhal Nandi Majumder assisted by Learned Counsel, Mr. Dhruba Jyoti Saha appearing on behalf of the accused in custody. Also heard Learned P.P., Mr. Raju Datta appearing on behalf of the State-respondent. As ordered earlier, Learned P.P. has produced the case diary today. (2) In course of hearing of argument, Learned Senior counsel for the accused in custody first of all drawn the attention of this Court referring the contents of the F.I.R. and submitted that there is no dispute on record that the money of the informant was misappropriated from her respective accounts. Learned Senior Counsel thereafter drawn the attention of this Court to the fact that investigation of this case is completed and by this time the I.O. has submitted charge-sheet against the present accused in custody and the other accused persons and from the report of the I.O. it only transpires that the present accused in custody only misappropriated Rs.20,000/- which is also subjected to proof. Furthermore, Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the accused is lodging in custody on and from

27.03.2025. So, considering the period of his detention in custody the accused person may be released on bail in any condition. Learned Senior Counsel at the time of hearing of argument made two different submissions. Firstly, Learned Senior Counsel submitted that there is/are no materials on record justifying the detention of the present accused and secondly, referring the order passed by a co-ordinate bench of this Court in AB No.31 of 2019 dated 07.05.2019 and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Criminal Appeal No.818 of 2025 dated 18.02.2025[Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu vs. The State of Chhattisgarh reported in (2025) 5 SCC 140] he submitted that a direction may be given to deposit a portion of amount by the accused in custody. In the first phase of his submission Learned Senior Counsel relied upon one citation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2011) AIR SCW 6838 wherein in para Nos.25 and 26, Hon’ble the Apex Court observed as under:- “25. Coming back to the facts of the present case, both the Courts have refused the request for grant of bail on two grounds:- The primary ground is that offence alleged against the accused persons is very serious involving deep rooted planning in which, huge financial loss is caused to the State Exchequer; the secondary ground is that the (3) possibility of the accused persons tempering with the witness. In the present case, the charge is that of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, forgery for the purpose of cheating using as genuine a forged document. The punishment of the offence is punishment for a term which may extend to seven years. It is, no doubt, true that the nature of the charge may be relevant, but at the same time, the punishment to which the party may be liable, if convicted, also bears upon the issue. Therefore, in determining whether to grant bail, both the seriousness of the charge and the severity of the punishment should be taken into consideration. The grant or refusal to grant bail lies within the discretion of the Court. The grant or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. But at the same time, right to bail is not to be denied merely because of the sentiments of the community against the accused. The primary purposes of bail in a criminal case are to relieve the accused of imprisonment, to relieve the State of the burden of keeping him, pending the trial, and at the same time, to keep the accused constructively in the custody of the Court, whether before or after conviction, to assure that he will submit to the jurisdiction of the Court and be in attendance thereon whenever his presence is required. This Court in Gurcharan Singh and Ors. v. State, AIR 1978 SC 179, observed that two paramount considerations, while considering petition for grant of bail in non-bailable offence, apart from the seriousness of the offence, are the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and his tampering with the prosecution witnesses. Both of them relate to ensure of the fair trial of the case. Though, this aspect is dealt by the High Court in its impugned order, in our view, the same is not convincing.

#26. When the under-trial prisoners are detained in jail indefinite period, Article 21 of the custody to an Constitution is violated. Every person, detained or arrested, is entitled to speedy trial, the question is: whether the same is possible in the present case. There are seventeen accused persons. Statement of the witnesses runs to several hundred pages and the documents on which reliance is placed by the prosecution, is voluminous. The trial may take considerable time and it looks to us that the appellants, who are in jail, have to remain in jail longer than the period of detention, had they been convicted. 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 appellants is a serious one in terms of alleged huge loss to the State Exchequer, that, by itself, should not deter us from enlarging the appellants on bail when there is no serious contention of the respondent that the accused, if released on bail, would interfere with the trial or tamper with evidence. We do not see any good reason to detain the accused in custody, that too, after the completion of the investigation and filing of the charge-sheet. This Court, in the case of State of Kerala v. Raneef (2011) 1 SCC 784: (AIR 2011 SC 340), has stated :- "15. In deciding bail applications an important factor which should certainly be taken into consideration by the court is the delay in concluding the trial. Often this takes several years, and if the accused is denied bail but is ultimately acquitted, who will restore so many years of his life spent in custody? Is Article 21 of the Constitution, which is the most basic of all the fundamental rights in our Constitution, not violated in such a case? Of course this is not the only factor, but it is certainly one of the important factors in deciding whether to grant bail. In the present case the respondent has already spent 66 days in custody (as stated in Para 2 of his counter-affidavit), and we see no reason why he should be denied bail. A doctor (4) incarcerated for a long period may end up like Dr. Manette in Charles Dicken’s novel A Tale of Two Cities, who forgot his profession and even his name in the Bastille."” Referring the same Learned Senior Counsel submitted that in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble the Apex Court, the accused in custody may be released on bail in any condition. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Majumder referred another citation of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement reported in AIR 2020 SC 1699 wherein in Para Nos.21 and 22, Hon’ble the Apex Court observed as under:- “21. Thus from cumulative perusal of the judgments cited on either side including the one rendered by the Constitution Bench of this Court, it could be deduced that the basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains the same inasmuch as the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception so as to ensure that the accused has the opportunity of securing 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 circumstance while considering the application for bail in such matters, the Court will have to deal with the same, being sensitive to the nature of allegation made against 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 if 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 consideration will have to be on case to case basis on the facts involved therein and securing the presence of the accused to stand trial. the accused. One of

#22. In the above circumstance it would be clear that even after concluding the triple test in favour of the appellant the learned Judge of the High Court was certainly justified in adverting to the issue relating to the gravity of the offence. However, we disapprove the manner in which the conclusions are recorded in paragraphs 57 to 62 wherein the observations are reflected to be in the nature of finding relating to the alleged offence. The learned senior counsel for the appellant with specific reference to certain observations contained in the above noted paragraphs has (5) pointed out that the very contentions to that effect as contained in paragraphs 17, 20 and 24 of the counter affidavit has been incorporated as if, it is the findings of the Court. The learned Solicitor General while seeking to controvert such contention would however contend that in addition to the counter affidavit the respondent had also furnished the documents in a sealed cover which was taken note by the learned Judge and conclusion has been reached.” Referring the same Learned Senior Counsel submitted that considering the nature of allegation against the accused in custody he may be released on bail. Again, Learned Senior Counsel referred another citation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. reported in AIR 2022 SC 3386 wherein in para Nos.66 and 68 Hon’ble the Apex Court observed as under:- “ECONOMIC OFFENCES (CATEGORY D) 66. What is left for us now to discuss are the economic offences. The question for consideration is whether it should be treated as a class of its own or otherwise. This issue has already been dealt with by this Court in the case of P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2020) 13 SCC 791: (AIR 2020 SC 1699), after taking note of the earlier decisions governing the field. The gravity of the offence, the object of the Special Act, and the attending circumstances are a few of the factors to be taken note of, along with the period of sentence. After all, an economic offence cannot be classified as such, as it may involve various activities and may differ from one case to another. Therefore, it is not advisable on the part of the court to categorise all the offences into one group and deny bail on that basis. Suffice it to state that law, as laid down in the following judgements, will govern the field:- Precedents