Bail is to secure the accused's appearance at trial and should not be punitive, and it should be granted with stringent conditions based on completed investigation and absence of flight risk or evidence tampering.

Siddharth Mridul, J.

1. The present is an application for grant of regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C., 1973 in FIR No.17/2014, under Sections 419/420/467/468/471/120B IPC, Police Station-Economic Offences Wing, New Delhi.

2. At the outset, it is noticed that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 14.05.2015 and the subject charge sheet has been filed on 08.07.2015 after investigation.

3. Mr. Hariharan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant has invited my attention firstly, to the orders passed by DRT-II on 08.04.2015, specifically paragraph 14(e) at page 95, paragraph 14(f) at page 96 and paragraph 20 at page 98 of the application paper book to urge that insofar as the banks who are alleged to have been cheated are concerned, their interests have been secured by the said order.

4. Mr. Hariharan, learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation: (2012) I SCC 40 as well as the decision of this Court in Rajat Sharma vs. State (NCT of Delhi): 2015 SCC OnLine Del 8914 to urge that although the allegations levelled against the applicant are serious economic offences resulting in loss to the State Exchequer, what requires to be considered is that punishment in the shape of detention ought to be imposed only after trial and conviction and that the applicant should be considered innocent unless he is found guilty. In other words, Mr. Hariharan’s thrust is that if this principle is not adhered to, it may lead to a chaotic situation seriously jeopardizing personal liberty of an individual.

5. On the contrary, it has been urged by Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, learned Additional Standing Counsel (Criminal) appearing on behalf of the State and Mr. Sunil Mittal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant that although the charge sheet has been filed, the investigation is not complete and the applicant is alleged to have repeatedly taken loans from different banks on the same property by means of forged documents. It is further urged by Mr. Mahajan that other accused persons in the subject FIR are still at large. Lastly, it has been urged that since multiple banks seem to be involved in the purported scam, release of the applicant on bail may hamper investigation.

6. Mr. Sunil Mittal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant has buttressed his submissions by relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy vs. Central Bureau of Investigation: AIR 2013 SCC 1933 and in paragraph 15 of the report in particular to urge that economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail since they involve deep rooted conspiracy affecting the economy of the country as a whole.

7. According to the prosecution, the applicant is alleged to have, in connivance with his late father Shri K.C. Nagpal, and officials of certain banks, cheated the Banks to the tune of Rs.3.25 crores on the basis of fake property documents. In this behalf, it is observed that a perusal of the charge sheet reveals that a notice was issued to the ICICI Bank, who are one of purported lenders on 28.04.2015 but no response has been forthcoming from the Bank. It is a matter of some concern that in a case involving alleged defalcation of public funds, the prosecution went ahead and filed a charge sheet without first obtaining the relevant documents from the concerned Bank.

8. In the landmark decision reported as Sanjay Chandra (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court crystallized the law in respect of the regular bail as under:-

“21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an accused