Accused’s Right to Bail Remains Fundamental Despite Serious Economic Offences, Rules High Court
Justice Pankaj Jain’s decision highlights the balance between individual liberty and societal interests in complex financial cases.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted bail to Mahesh Kumar alias Mahesh Bansal, who was implicated in a significant tax evasion and forgery case. The judgment, delivered by Justice Pankaj Jain, aligns with established legal precedents that emphasize the presumption of innocence and the careful exercise of judicial discretion in bail matters, especially concerning economic offences.
Mahesh Kumar was accused in FIR No.651 dated October 24, 2020, under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code, including Sections 406, 420, 419, 465, 467, 468, and 471, with Sections 409 and 120-B added later. The case pertained to alleged tax evasion under the Haryana VAT Act. The petitioner’s plea for bail was previously denied, while the prime accused, Amit Bansal, had been granted bail earlier in February 2024.
Credibility of Arguments: Justice Jain noted the legislative intent behind the VAT Act, which provides specific penal provisions and excludes police jurisdiction for certain procedural aspects. This legislative framework was pivotal in evaluating whether the police actions were justified under the IPC when specialized statutory mechanisms existed.
Presumption of Innocence: Emphasizing the foundational principle of criminal jurisprudence, the court remarked, “Presumption of innocence is one of the bedrocks on which the criminal jurisprudence rests.” Justice Jain highlighted that despite the serious nature of economic offences, the accused’s right to bail remains fundamental unless compelling reasons for continued detention are established.
Bail Jurisprudence: The court discussed various Supreme Court precedents, reiterating that bail is the rule and its denial an exception, particularly once the investigation is complete and the charge sheet is filed. Justice Jain referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI, underscoring that economic offences, while serious, do not automatically preclude bail.
The judgment referenced key principles from notable cases, including State through CBI vs. Amaramani Tripathi and Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI. The court reiterated that factors such as the nature of the offence, potential flight risk, and possible tampering with evidence must be judiciously balanced. “Keeping the accused in indefinite custody violates Article 21 of the Constitution, ensuring the right to a speedy trial,” the bench asserted.
Justice Pankaj Jain observed, “Even economic offences would fall under the category of ‘grave offence,’ and in such circumstances, the court must deal with the bail application with sensitivity to the allegations made against the accused. However, it is not a rule that bail should be denied in every case.”
The High Court’s decision to grant bail to Mahesh Kumar underscores a balanced approach to judicial discretion, particularly in economic offence cases. By aligning with established jurisprudence, the judgment reinforces the critical principle of the presumption of innocence and the right to liberty, even amid serious allegations. This ruling is expected to influence future bail considerations in complex financial cases, promoting a judicious balance between individual rights and societal interests.
Date of Decision: May 10, 2024
Mahesh Kumar Alias Mahesh Bansal vs State of Haryana
