The principle that deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment and the grant of bail based on the completion of investigation without the commencement of trial.

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with FIR No.270/2010 (P.S.Ambedkar Nagar), initially instituted for the offence under Sections 420/120B IPC but chargesheet having been submitted under Sections 409/406/420/467/471/120B IPC.

2. One Rita Chhabra lodged a complaint alleging that the petitioner runs a NGO under the name and style of Anand Jan Sewa Society. In the aforesaid NGO, the complainant invested an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- on being deceived by an agent of the petitioner namely Heena. The complainant was induced to believe that her deposits would be trebled in a short span of time. This was obviously a wrong promise.

3. After lodging of the aforementioned case, the petitioner was arrested on 10.09.2010. During the period when the aforesaid case was being investigated, many other FIRs came to be registered. However, after completion of investigation, chargesheet was submitted against the petitioner and others on 06.12.2010.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though charges were framed against the petitioner under Sections 409 read with Section 120 B IPC and in the alternative under Section 420 read with Section 120B IPC, but no witness as yet could be examined at the trial.

5. While pressing for bail, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 10.09.2010 and till date the trial has not commenced in the sense that no witness has been examined.

6. It has further been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there are many connected FIRs and speaking in a composite way, there would be not less than 2500 witnesses cited in the list of witnesses in the aforesaid cases. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that in some of the connected FIRs, the petitioner has been granted bail while in some he is in custody.

7. Ms.Alpana Pandey, APP on the other hand submits that the petitioner was the President of NGO namely Anand Jan Sewa Society and he has dishonestly misappropriated the deposits of the gullible investors. Initially the schemes of the NGO of which petitioner was the president related to the distribution of ration and household items but later, gradually, the NGO started dabbling in cash returns. It was further submitted that during investigation, cash amounting to Rs.28,98,499/- was recovered from the house of the petitioner. Apart from the aforestated money in cash, other valuables also were recovered. On a rough estimation, Ms.Pandey, APP submits that there would be around 1600 complainants/victims, all of whom have been cited as witnesses and they were duped of approximately Rs.20 crores. Uptil now, it is submitted, around 8500 complaints have been received in EOW against the NGO (Anand Jan Sewa Society) and its functionaries and the total amount involved is approximately Rs.80 crores. Learned APP has also taken reference of six more FIRs which have been registered in EOW against the NGO (Anand Jan Sewa Society) which are pending investigation.

8. In Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI, 2012 (1) SCC 40, the Supreme Court held 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 preventive. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The Courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.”

9. Though nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction as well as reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses or apprehension of threat to the complainant are some of the important considerations while granting or refusing bail but in the case in hand, one cannot forget that chargesheet has already been submitted. Even after framing of charges, not a sing