Principles For Bail In Heinous Crimes Must Apply To Serious Economic Offences : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has observed that the principles governing bail in heinous offences apply with equal force to serious economic offences, as such crimes directly undermine the economic well-being and quality of life of citizens. A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K Vinod Chandran set aside the Allahabad High Court's Lucknow Bench order, which granted bail to an accused, who is a habitual offender in committing financial crimes. The bench noted that the High Court erred in granting bail solely based on a principle of parity without necessarily weighing the relevant factors, such as his active role in the commission of the crime, and his indulgence in the same activities time and again. The Court said although earlier precedents such as Neeru Yadav vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2014) 16 SCC 508 and Sudha Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2021) 4 SCC 781, which put restrains on a grant of bail owing to the factors such as potential threat to witnesses and disturbance of law and order, arose from heinous and violent crimes, the underlying principles enshrined therein equally apply to the present case involving offences of financial fraud."Though the observations made in some of the above cases were in the context of heinous offences, which is not the case presently, we may note that the value of life and liberty of members of society is not limited only to their 'person' but would also extend to the quality of their life, including their economic well-being. In offences of a pecuniary nature, where innocent people are cheated of their hard-earned monies by conmen, who make it their life's pursuit to exploit and feast upon the gullibility of others, the aforestated factors must necessarily be weighed while dealing with the alleged offenders' pleas for grant of bail.”, the court observed.Background The appeal arose from an order of the High Court which had granted bail to the accused, in a case involving allegations of large-scale cheating, criminal breach of trust, forgery, and criminal intimidation. The Appellant-complainant alleged that he had supplied foodgrains worth over ₹11.52 crore to the accused and his associates, but received payments amounting to only ₹5.02 crore. The remaining amount was allegedly siphoned off through forged documents, fake addresses, and multiple false identities. The FIR initially mentioned Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 506 of the IPC. During the investigation, Section 409 IPC (criminal breach of trust by a person in a position of trust) was also added. The prosecution alleged that the accused operated under several aliases, possessed multiple forged Aadhaar and PAN cards, absconded for nearly 20 months, and was apprehended only after a reward was announced. The Sessions Court had earlier rejected the accused's bail plea, noting suppression of criminal antecedents and deliberate misleading of the court. However, the High Court granted bail on the ground of parity with co-accused, observing that the offence was triable by a Magistrate, the charge sheet had been filed, and the accused had spent some time in custody. Challenging the High Court's order, the complainant approached the Supreme Court. Decision Setting aside the impugned finding, the judgment authored by Justice Chandran emphasized that ignoring criminal antecedents, absconding conduct, use of fake identities, and likelihood of repeat offences render a bail order perverse and vulnerable to appellate interference. “In the case on hand, the investigation against respondent No.1, as is borne out by the counter affidavit filed by the State, clearly demonstrates that he is a habitual offender. The number of diverse and unconnected aliases, fake IDs and the deliberate changes of identity, including his father's name, clearly manifest his nefarious intention to dupe innocent victims and cheat them… Further, the fact that respondent No.1 was granted bail earlier but chose to indulge in the same activities once again, resulting in the registration of multiple FIRs over the years, demonstrates that he is a career criminal and a menace to society. The impugned order reflects that his past antecedents were not even taken into consideration. Similarly, his conduct in the context of the pending case was not noted. Having secured bail in relation to FIR No. 229 of 2017, respondent No.1 chose to abscond, resulting in issuance of a non-bailable warrant, which also brought to light the fact that his surety was not to be found.”, the court observed. “…the High Court ought not to have blindly extended the parity principle to him without considering the particular and distinctive features of his individual case. Given the fact that respondent No.1 has not turned over a new leaf, despite the indulgence shown by grant of bail in relation to FIR…as evidenced by the FIRs registered against him over the years, we are of the opinion that letting him loose on society would only pose a risk and...

Principles For Bail In Heinous Crimes Must Apply To Serious Economic Offences : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

Tags