Supreme Court: Rape Conviction Possible Without S.376 Charge if POCSO Case Fails on Age Proof  ||  SC: Mere Long Possession Can't Establish Adverse Possession; Hostile Intent is Required  ||  Supreme Court Finds Gaps in FSSAI’s Proposed Warning Labels for Foods High in Fat, Sugar and Salt  ||  Supreme Court Quashes ITS Officer's 'Deadwood' Retirement, Orders Rs. 15 Lakh Payment  ||  Uttarakhand HC: District Magistrate to Establish Public Helpline within 24 Hrs amid Water Pollution  ||  Allahabad HC: Custodial Violence and Molestation Are Crimes, Not Police Duty  ||  Gujarat High Court: Bombay Public Trust Registration is Covered by Section 43 of the Waqf Act  ||  J&K&L HC: Advocates not Above Law, No Immunity from Lawful Police Inquiry  ||  Gauhati HC: Talaq-e-Hasan Valid, Requires Registration under Assam Marriage Act  ||  NCLAT: NCLT President Empowered to Transfer Cases from One Bench to Another    

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