VERY IMPORTANT POINTS
1. In determining whether to grant bail, both the seriousness of the charge and the severity of the punishment should be taken into consideration.
2. When the undertrial prisoners are detained in jail custody to an indefinite period, Article 21 of the Constitution is violated.
3. Since every person, detained or arrested, is entitled to speedy Trial. In deciding bail applications an important factor which should be taken into consideration by court is the delay in concluding the trial.
IMPORTANT POINTS
1.. It is, no doubt, true that 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.
2.. Bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception.
3.. Refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Headnote:Code of Criminal Procedure ,1973- Section 439 - Appellants facing trial in respect of offences under Sections 420-B, 468, 471 and 109 of Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with 13(i)(d) of PC Act, 1988- Bail refused by Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi and subsequently, by High Court- Both the courts refused bail applications filed by applicants on grounds of seriousness of charge; nature of evidence in support of charge; likely sentence to be imposed upon conviction; possibility of interference with witnesses; the objection of the prosecuting authorities; possibility of absconding from justice-Appeals against common Judgment and Order of High Court , by which it refused to grant bail to accused-appellants-Held even though accused were charged with economic offences of huge magnitude offences alleged, if proved, may jeopardize the economy of the country- However at the same time, one could not lose sight of the fact that investigating agency had already completed investigation and the charge sheet had already been filed before Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi- Therefore, their presence in the custody may not be necessary for further investigation- Hence held that the appellants were entitled to grant of bail pending trial on stringent conditions in order to ally the apprehension expressed by CBI-Appellants released on bail on their executing a bond with two solvent sureties, each in a sum of ‘5 lakhs to the satisfaction of Special Judge, CBI-Appeals disposed off (Paras 28 to 30)
        Code of Criminal Procedure ,1973- Section 439 - Appellants facing trial in respect of offences under Sections 420-B, 468, 471 and 109 of Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with 13(i)(d) of PC Act, 1988- Bail refused by Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi and subsequently, by High Court -Appeals against common Judgment and Order of High Court - In the instant case, charge was that of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, forgery for the purpose of cheating using as genuine a forged document-The punishment of offence is punishment for a term which may extend to seven years- It is, no doubt, true that 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- Appellants released on bail on their executing a bond with two solvent sureties, each in a sum of ‘5 lakhs to the satisfaction of Special Judge, CBI-Appeals disposed off (Para 25)
        Code of Criminal Procedure ,1973- Section 439 - Appellants facing trial in respect of offences under Sections 420-B, 468, 471 and 109 of Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with 13(i)(d) of PC Act, 1988- Bail refused by Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi and subsequently, by High Court -Appeals against common Judgment and Order of High Court -In deciding bail applications an important factor which should be taken into consideration by court is the delay in concluding the trial- When the undertrial prisoners are detained in jail custody to an indefinite period, Article 21 of the Constitution is violated- Every person, detained or arrested, is entitled to speedy trial-. Instantly there are seventeen accused persons- Statement of the witnesses runs to several hundred pages and documents on which reliance was placed by prosecution, is voluminous- The trial may take considerable time -Hence held not in the interest of justice that accused should be in jail for an indefinite period- No doubt, offence alleged against appellants was a serious one in terms of alleged huge loss to the State exchequer-However that, by itself, should not deter enlarging the appellants on bail when there was no serious contention of respondent that accused, if released on bail, would interfere with the trial or tamper with evidence-No good reason to detain accused in custody, that too, after the completion of investigation and filing of charge-sheet (Para 26)
       Facts of the Case :
        A. Appellants herein in the instant case were facing trial in respect of offences under Sections 420-B, 468, 471 and 109 of Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with 13(i)(d) of PC Act, 1988.
        B. Bail was refused by Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi and subsequently, by High Court. Both the courts refused Bail applications filed by applicants on grounds of seriousness of charge; nature of evidence in support of charge; likely sentence to be imposed upon conviction; possibility of interference with witnesses; the objection of the prosecuting authorities; possibility of absconding from justice.
        C. Present Appeals have been filed against common Judgment and Order of High Court , by which it refused to grant bail to accused-appellants.
       Findings of the Court :
        A. Even though accused were charged with economic offences of huge magnitude offences alleged, if proved, may jeopardize the economy of the country. However at the same time, one could not lose sight of the fact that investigating agency had already completed investigation and the charge sheet had already been filed before Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi. Therefore, their presence in the custody may not be necessary for further investigation.
        B. When the undertrial prisoners are detained in jail custody to an indefinite period, Article 21 of the Constitution is violated. Every person, detained or arrested, is entitled to speedy Trial. Instantly there are seventeen accused persons. Statement of the witnesses runs to several hundred pages and documents on which reliance was placed by prosecution, is voluminous. The trial may take considerable time .Hence held not in the interest of justice that accused should be in jail for an indefinite period.
        C. No doubt, offence alleged against appellants was a serious one in terms of alleged huge loss to the State exchequer. However that, by itself, should not deter enlarging the appellants on bail when there was no serious contention of respondent that accused, if released on bail, would interfere with the trial or tamper with evidence. No good reason to detain accused in custody, that too, after the completion of investigation and filing of charge-sheet.
        D .Hence held that the appellants were entitled to grant of bail pending trial on stringent conditions in order to ally the apprehension expressed by CBI. Appellants released on bail on their executing a bond with two solvent sureties, each in a sum of ‘5 lakhs to the satisfaction of Special Judge, CBI. Appeals were disposed of.

Judgement Key Points

Yes, this judgment holds that bail should not be automatically denied merely due to the seriousness of the charges, even in cases of grave economic offences involving huge losses to the State exchequer. It emphasizes that seriousness is a relevant factor but must be balanced against others, such as the severity of potential punishment (here, up to seven years), completion of investigation, filing of the charge sheet, likelihood of trial delay violating Article 21, absence of evidence showing risk of tampering with witnesses or absconding, and the principle that bail is the rule while jail is the exception. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

Key principles include: - Courts must consider both the seriousness of the offence and the punishment upon conviction, rejecting "rolled-up" reliance on gravity alone. (!) - Prolonged pre-trial detention, especially with voluminous evidence and multiple accused (here, 17), violates speedy trial rights under Article 21, favoring bail to avoid indefinite custody longer than any likely sentence. (!) (!) (!) - Post-investigation and charge sheet filing, custody is unnecessary absent specific risks like witness interference, which were unsubstantiated here. (!) (!) - The Court granted bail on stringent conditions (e.g., bonds of ₹5 lakhs each with sureties, passport surrender, no contact with witnesses), demonstrating that safeguards can address concerns even in serious cases. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

Refusal based solely on seriousness would imbalance constitutional rights, treating pre-trial detention punitively rather than preventively. (!) (!) (!)

JUDGMENT

H.L. Dattu, J.

1) Leave granted in all the Special Leave Petitions.

2) These appeals are directed against the common Judgment and Order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi, dated 23rd May 2011 in Bail Application No. 508/2011, Bail Application No. 509/2011 & Crl. M.A. 653/2011, Bail Application No. 510/2011, Bail Application No. 511/2011 and Bail Application No. 512/2011, by which the learned Single Judge refused to grant bail to the accused-appellants. These cases were argued together and submitted for decision as one case.

3) The offence alleged against each of the accused, as noticed by the Ld. Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi, who rejected bail applications of the appellants, vide his order dated 20.4.2011, is extracted for easy reference :

Sanjay Chandra (A7) in Crl. Appeal No. 2178 of 2011 [arising out of SLP (Crl.)No.5650 of 2011]:

“6. The allegations against accused Sanjay Chandra are that he entered into criminal conspiracy with accused A. Raja, R.K. Chandolia and other accused persons during September 2009 to get UAS licence for providing telecom services to otherwise an ineligible company to get UAS licences. He, as Managing Director of M/s Unitech Wireless (Tamil Nadu) Limited, was looking after the business of telecom through 8 group companies of Unitech Limited. The first-come-first-served procedure of allocation of UAS Licences and spectrum was manipulated by the accused persons in order to benefit M/s Unitech Group Companies. The cutoff date of 25.09.2007 was decided by accused public servants of DoT primarily to allow consideration of Unitech group applications for UAS licences. The Unitech Group Companies were in business of realty and even the objects of companies were not changed to `telecom’ and registered as required before applying. The companies were ineligible to get the licences till the grant of UAS licences. The Unitech Group was almost last within the applicants considered for allocation of UAS licences and as per existing policy of first-come-first-served, no licence could be issued in as many as 10 to 13 circles where sufficient spectrum was not available. The Unitech companies got benefit of spectrum in as many as 10 circles over the other eligible applicants. Accused Sanjay Chandra, in conspiracy with accused public servants, was aware of the whole design of the allocation of LOIs and on behalf of the Unitech group companies was ready with the drafts of Rs. 1658 crores as early as 10th October, 2007.”

Vinod Goenka (A5) in Crl. Appeal No. 2179 of 2011 [arising out of SLP(Crl)No.5902 of 2011] :

“5.The allegations against accused Vinod Goenka are that he was one of the directors of M/s Swan Telecom (P) Limited in addition to accused Shahid Usman Balwa w.e.f. 01.10.2007 and acquired majority stake on 18.10.2007 in M/s Swan Telecom (P) Limited (STPL) through DB Infrastructure (P) Limited. Accused Vinod Goenka carried forward the fraudulent applications of STPL dated 02.03.2007 submitted by previous management despite knowing the fact that STPL was ineligible company to get UAS licences by virtue of clause 8 of UASL guidelines 2005. Accused Vinod Goenka was an associate of accused Shahid Usman Balwa to create false documents including Board Minutes of M/s Giraffe Consultancy (P) Limited fraudulently showing transfer of its shares by the companies of Reliance ADA Group during February 2007 itself. Accused/applicant in conspiracy with accused Shahid Usman Balwa concealed or furnished false information to DoT regarding shareholding pattern of STPL as on the date of application thereby making STPL an eligible company to get licence on the date of application, that is, 02.03.2007. Accused/applicant was an overall beneficiary with accused Shahid Usman Balwa for getting licence and spectrum in 13 telecom circles.

12. Investigation has also disclosed pursuant to TRAI recommendations dated 28.08.2007 when M/s Reliance Communications Ltd. got the GSM spectrum under the Dual Technology po

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2011 Supreme(SC) 1096

Cases Referred (16)