Supreme Court: Single Insolvency Petition Maintainable Against Linked Corporate Entities  ||  Supreme Court: Disputes are Not Arbitrable When the Arbitration Agreement is Alleged to be Forged  ||  Supreme Court: Temple Trust Does Not Qualify as an ‘Industry’ under the Industrial Disputes Act  ||  Delhi HC: Unmarried Granddaughter’s Limited Estate Can Become Absolute if Pre-Existing Right  ||  MP High Court: Labour Laws are Beneficial, and Hyper-Technical Limitation Views Must be Avoided  ||  Calcutta HC: Supplementary Chargesheet Filed Late in NDPS Trial is Valid if Based on Fresh Evidence  ||  Delhi High Court: Co-Accused’s Abscondence Can Be a Relevant Factor in Granting NDPS Bail  ||  P &H HC: Unfavourable Orders Cannot Justify Trial Transfer; Courts Must Prevent Forum Hunting  ||  SC: UGC Regulations Override State Law on Forming Search Committees For University VC Appointments  ||  SC: State Cannot Deny Regularisation to Long-Serving Contract Staff Appointed Through Due Process    

Mohan Kumar Jha and Ors. Vs. State of NCT of Delhi - (High Court of Delhi) (16 Nov 2021)

Magnitude of the offence cannot be the only criterion for denying bail

MANU/DE/3075/2021

Criminal

Present petitions under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) have been filed for grant of bail to the petitioners in FIR registered at Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 420/188/120B/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Section 3 of the Epidemic Disease Act, 1897. All the said petitions have a common prayer, i.e. to enlarge the accused persons on regular bail.

Charge-sheet has been filed. The evidence, which is primarily documentary in nature, has been collected and is already in the custody of Police. The exhibits have been sent for sampling and for verification. The Petitioners are accused of offences punishable under Sections 420/468/471/188/120B/34 of IPC and Sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act and Section 3 of the Epidemic Disease Act and if convicted the Petitioners can be sentenced for imprisonment for a maximum period of seven years. The Petitioners have already spent seven months in custody. Though the Petitioners are accused of a nefarious and depraved offence, taking into account the fact that the evidence which is primarily documentary in nature and is already in the custody of Police, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in prolonging the incarceration of the Petitioners.

It is settled law that, the magnitude of the offence cannot be the only criterion for denying bail. The object of bail is to secure the presence of the accused at the Trial. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative and the person who has not been convicted should be held in custody pending Trial only to ensure his attendance at Trial; and to ensure that the evidence is not tampered with and the witnesses are not threatened. If there is no apprehension of interference in administration of justice in a criminal trial by an accused then a person should not be deprived of his liberty. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners on the conditions. Petitions are disposed of.

Tags : BAIL   GRANT   CONDITIONS  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved