The main legal point established is the discretion of the court in granting bail, the presumption of innocence, and the need for bail conditions to be reasonable and judicious.

JUDGMENT

Anoop Chitkara, J. - The petitioner, a permanent resident of West Bengal, who is under incarceration for more than six months for committing a white-collar crime, has come up before this Court, seeking regular bail.

2. Based on a complaint, the police arrested the petitioner on 10th January 2020, in FIR No. 68 of 2019, dated 25.08.2019, registered under Sections 420, 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860, (IPC), in Police Station Nirmand, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, disclosing cognizable and non-bailable offences.

3. Earlier, the petitioner had filed a petition under Section 439 CrPC before the concerned Sessions Court. However, vide order dated 23.3.2020, Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushehar, HP, dismissed the petition, primarily because the amount involved is enormous and there is possibility of tampering the evidence.

4. I have read the status report(s) and heard counsel for the parties, as well as Ld. Amicus Curiae.

FACTS:

5. Briefly, the allegations against the petitioner are that he made phone calls from various numbers to the complainant, befooled him to share one-time passwords (OTPs) received by him, and subsequently withdrew Rs. 9,87,000/- from his bank accounts.

PREVIOUS CRIMINAL HISTORY

6. As per status report, the petitioner has a similar case registered against him.

SUBMISSIONS:

7. The learned Counsel for the bail petitioner submits that the time already spent in jail would be somewhere half of the actual term the accused is likely to undergo in case of conviction. Ld. Counsel on instructions further contends that in the event this bail petition is allowed, then such release should be on cash security instead of surety bonds because the accused does not know anyone who resides nearby to stand as surety. In the current situation, no one from West Bengal can travel to furnish surety bonds.

8. On the contrary, Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, Additional Advocate General, contended that white-collar criminals are termites weakening the very foundation of the system. He further argued that the Police have collected sufficient prima facie evidence, which connects him with the commission of the offence. He also submitted that if this Court is inclined to grant bail, then such a bond must be subject to very stringent conditions.

ANALYSIS AND REASONING:

9. Pre-Trial incarceration needs justification depending upon the offense's heinous nature, terms of the sentence prescribed in the statute for such a crime, probability of the accused fleeing from justice, hampering the investigation, criminal history of the accused, and doing away with the victim(s) and witnesses. The Court is under an obligation to maintain a balance between all stakeholders and safeguard the interests of the victim, accused, society, and State.

10. In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and others v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 , a Constitutional bench of Supreme Court holds in Para 30, as follows:

"It is thus clear that the question whether to grant bail or not depends for its answer upon a variety of circumstances, the cumulative effect of which must enter into the judicial verdict. Any one single circumstance cannot be treated as of universal validity or as necessarily justifying the grant or refusal of bail."

11. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav, (2005) 2 SCC 42 , a three-member bench of Supreme Court holds:

"18. It is trite law that personal liberty cannot be taken away except in accordance with the procedure established by law. Personal liberty is a constitutional guarantee. However, Article 21 which guarantees the above right also contemplates deprivation of personal liberty by procedure established by law. Under the criminal laws of this country, a person accused of offences which are non-bailable is liable to be detained in custody during the pendency of trial unless he is enlarged on bail in accordance with law. Such detention cannot be questioned as being violative of Article 21 since the same is authorised