Bail Should Be the Norm in Economic Offences: Punjab and Haryana High Court
In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a judgment delivered on January 10, 2024, has emphasized the importance of granting bail as the norm, particularly in cases involving economic offences. The judgment comes in response to a bail application filed by Sandeep Singh Bal, who was charged with multiple offenses, including forgery and cheating a bank in connection with a housing loan.
The court, presided over by HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI, noted that the petitioner had been in custody since August 29, 2023, and none of the 23 prosecution witnesses had been examined so far. Importantly, the court found no significant evidence suggesting that the petitioner posed a risk of absconding, tampering with evidence, or influencing witnesses.
Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi, in his oral observations, stated, “Therefore, broadly speaking (subject to any statutory restrictions contained in Special Acts), in economic offences involving the IPC or Special Acts or cases triable by Magistrates once the investigation is complete, final report/complaint filed and the triple test is satisfied then denial of bail must be the exception rather than the rule. However, this would not prevent the Court from granting bail even prior to the completion of investigation if the facts so warrant.”
The court’s decision underscores the principle that bail should be granted ordinarily and that denial of bail should be an exception, especially in cases where the investigation is complete and there is no substantial evidence of potential harm to the trial process.
The petitioner, Sandeep Singh Bal, had claimed to be a guarantor for the loan obtained by his father, Jarnail Singh, and had argued that another co-accused, Simarjit Singh, had been granted bail earlier. While the court granted bail to Sandeep Singh Bal, it made it clear that this decision did not comment on the merits of the case.
The court ordered Sandeep Singh Bal to appear before the police station concerned on the first Monday of every month until the conclusion of the trial. Additionally, he was required to deposit an FDR (Fixed Deposit Receipt) of Rs. 2,00,000/- with the Trial Court, which would be forfeited in case of his absence from the trial without sufficient cause.
Date of Decision: January 10, 2024
Sandeep Singh Bal. VS State of Punjab.
