Supreme Court Awards Rs. 6 Lakh to Man Acquitted After 6 Years, Faults UP Police Probe  ||  Supreme Court: High Courts Can Restore Power on 50% Deposit in Arbitrary Theft Assessments  ||  Supreme Court: Cooperative Society Cannot Deny RTI Records as Personal if Registrar Can Access Them  ||  SC: CoC Cannot Withdraw Approved Resolution Plan Over Improved Corporate Debtor Finances  ||  Delhi High Court: 24-Week Limit Alone Cannot Restrict Medical Termination of Pregnancy  ||  Allahabad High Court Rejects Challenge to 18% GST on Online Legal Database Services  ||  Madras High Court: FIR Registration Does Not Decide Guilt; Prior Hearing of Accused Not Required  ||  Kerala High Court Orders Speedy Prosecution Sanction Process in Sabarimala Gold Theft Case  ||  Allahabad HC: Missing RT-PCR Report Cannot Bar COVID-19 Compensation if Records Confirm Infection  ||  MP High Court Directs Indore Police to Deploy Volunteers for Reporting Noise Pollution Violations    

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