Anticipatory bail is granted to protect personal liberty, emphasizing that the presumption is in favor of bail unless exceptional circumstances justify denial.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 438 - Anticipatory bail application - Petitioner claimed false implication in a cyber fraud case - Co-accused were granted bail - Petitioner has cooperated with the investigation - No custodial investigation required as per the IO - Basic rule is bail, not jail - Denial of bail amounts to deprivation of personal liberty - Reference made to Siddharam Satilingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Nathu Singh v. State of U.P. - Parameters for anticipatory bail include nature of offence and role attributed to the applicant. (Paras 1-12)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner applied for anticipatory bail in connection with a FIR involving alleged cyber fraud and conspiracy, asserting that the main accusations stem from his brother's actions and that he has not been named in the FIR.

Findings of Court:
The petitioner shall be admitted to anticipatory bail on specific conditions due to the nature of the evidence being primarily documentary and the lack of need for custodial investigation.

Issues: Main issues revolved around the rights of the petitioner under Article 21, nature of the evidence, and the role of the petitioner in the alleged crime.

Ratio Decidendi: The court highlighted the importance of personal liberty and established that anticipatory bail should be granted favorably unless specific conditions warrant otherwise.

Result: Anticipatory bail granted on terms.

JUDGMENT

Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J. (Oral)

BAIL APPLN. 3250/2021

1. Present application has been moved under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 419/2021 lodged on 29th July, 2021 at PS Hari Nagar under Sections 419/420/120B/34 IPC read with Section 66C/66(D) I.T. Act, 2000.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all the accused persons have already been admitted to bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in fact the petitioner is an actor and producer in the bollywood and has produced certain successful movies. It has been submitted that that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case as his brother Sanjeev Kumar was arrested in this case.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that accused Sanjeev Kumar has already been granted bail by the learned MM/Tis Hazari Courts, vide order dated 12th August, 2021. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the main allegation against present petitioner is that his brother Sanjeev Kumar who is also director in the company of the petitioner i.e. "Rangrezaa Flims" had deposited some amount. Learned counsel submits that mere deposit of amount by accused Sanjeev Kumar cannot be taken as incriminating material against the present application. Learned counsel submits has the petitioner has not even been named in the FIR. It has also been submitted that the petitioner has regularly joined the investigation as and when called by the IO.

4. Learned APP for the State on the instructions of the IO states that it is a serious case involving cyber fraud. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is one of the main conspirators of the present cheating Scam Call Centre. As per the disclosure statement of co-accused, the present petitioner is one of the two main gang kingpins. It has further been stated that source of procuring data of US resident victims is yet to be unearthed.

5. Learned APP further states that additionally some amount has been deposited by the co-accused Sanjeev Kumar in the company Rangrezza Films & Rangrezza Hospitality in which the present petitioner is one of the director.

6. Learned APP further states that computers seized from the call centre have been sent to the FSL and report is yet to come. IO states that there is no need of custodial investigation.

7. In the present case, admittedly, the co-accused have already been admitted to bail. The petitioner had joined the investigation as and when directed by the IO. IO has also stated the custodial investigation of the accused is not required. The report from the FSL is yet to come.

8. It is relevant to note that the petitioner has not misused the interim protection granted to him by this court.

9. It is also a settled proposition that keeping the person in custody during the investigation cannot be used as a punitive measure. It is a settled proposition that the basic rule of criminal jurisprudence is bail and not jail. This court and the Supreme Court has said this time and again that the courts must enforce this principle in practice. It has to be borne in mind that denial of bail amounts to deprivation of personal liberty.

10. In the case of Siddharam Satilingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra, (2001) 1 SCC 694, while considering matter relating to grant of anticipatory bail and after exhaustively analyzing the rights under Article 21 it was inter alia held that a great ignominy, humiliation and disgrace is attached to the arrest. It has further been held that arrest leads to many serious consequences not only for the accused but for the entire family and at times for the entire community.

11. In Nathu Singh v. State of U.P., (2021) 6 SCC 64, the Apex Court inter alia held that grant or rejection of an application under Section 438 CrPC has a direct bearing on the fundamental right to life and liberty of an individual. Thus, while considering the bail this court has to look into the facts and circumstances

Click Here to Read the rest of this document