2019 Supreme(SC) 1317

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R. BANUMATHI, A.S. BOPANNA, HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.
P. Chidambaram – Appellant
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.1831 of 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Criminal) No.10493 of 2019
Decided on : 04-12-2019

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Grant of bail – Even economic offences would fall under category of “grave offence”.
(2) Irrespective of nature and gravity of charge, precedent of another case alone will not be basis for either grant or refusal of bail though it may have a bearing on principle.

Headnote:

(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439 – Grant of bail – Determining factors – Basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains same inasmuch as grant of bail is rule and refusal is exception so as to ensure that accused has opportunity of securing fair trial – However, while considering the same gravity of offence is an aspect which is required to be kept in view by Court – Gravity for said purpose will have to be gathered from facts and circumstances arising in each case. (Para 21)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439 – Grant of bail – Economic offences – Even economic offences would fall under category of “grave offence” and in such circumstance while considering application for bail in such matters, Court will have to deal with the same, being sensitive to nature of allegation made against accused – One of circumstances to consider gravity of offence is also term of sentence that is prescribed for the offence accused is alleged to have committed – Such consideration with regard to gravity of offence is a factor which is in addition to the triple test or tripod test that would be normally applied – Even if 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 relevant enactment passed by legislature nor does bail jurisprudence provides so – Irrespective of nature and gravity of charge, precedent of another case alone will not be basis for either grant or refusal of bail though it may have a bearing on principle – But ultimately consideration will have to be on case to case basis on facts involved therein and securing presence of accused to stand trial. Para 21)

(C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439 – Bail – INX Media case – FIR registered by CBI under Section 120B r/w 420 IPC and Sections 8 and 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of P.C. Act – Recording of statements and collation of material is in nature of allegation against one of co-accused who is son of appellant, of opening shell companies and also purchasing benami properties in name of relatives at various places in different countries – Appellant has not been named as one of accused in ECIR but allegation while being made against co-accused it is indicated appellant who was Finance Minister at that point, has aided illegal transactions since one of co-accused is son of the appellant – In this context even if statements on record and materials gathered are taken note, complicity of appellant will have to be established in trial and if convicted, appellant will undergo sentence – For present, anticipatory bail had been declined earlier and appellant was available for custodial interrogation for more than 45 days – In addition to custodial interrogation if further investigation is to be made, appellant would be bound to participate in such investigation as is required by respondent – Appellant is aged about 74 years and appellant has already suffered two bouts of illness during incarceration and was put on antibiotics and has been advised to take steroids of maximum strength – Appellant is not a ‘flight risk’ and there is no possibility of tampering evidence or influencing\intimidating witnesses – Bail granted against conditions. (Paras 24, 25 and 26)

Facts of the case:

Instant appeal has been filed by appellant assailing the final order dated 15.11.2019 passed by High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Bail Application No. 2718 of 2019 whereby High Court declined to grant regular bail to appellant.

Findings of Court:

Appellant has not been named as one of the accused in the ECIR but the allegation while being made against the co-accused it is indicated appellant who was Finance Minister at that point, has aided the illegal transactions since one of co-accused is the son of the appellant. In this context even if statements on record and materials gathered are taken note, complicity of appellant will have to be established in trial and if convicted, appellant will undergo sentence.

Result : Appeal allowed.