Even Economic Offences Do Not Justify Automatic Denial of Bail:  Delhi High Court Grants Bail in ₹2.55 Crore Cheating & Forgery Case

“A Person Should Not Be Kept in Continued Judicial Incarceration as a Matter of Punishment Before Trial” — In a significant reaffirmation of bail jurisprudence, the Delhi High Court  granted regular bail to Arun Sachdeva and Sangeeta Sachdeva, accused of cheating, forgery, and criminal conspiracy involving the alleged siphoning of over ₹2.55 crore through a fraudulent property transaction scheme. High Court ruled that continued pre-trial incarceration, even in serious economic offences, is unwarranted when the investigation is complete and evidence is documentary.

Justice Amit Sharma invoked settled principles of liberty under Article 21, quoting P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement:
“Even economic offences would fall under the category of grave offence, but it is not a rule that bail should be denied in every case.”

The complaint was filed by Mahavir Prasad and his family members, alleging that the accused lured them into paying ₹2.55 crore under the pretext of settling debts and purchasing seven properties. It was later discovered that those properties were already mortgaged, and the accused allegedly executed agreements to sell without possession, and eventually sold the properties to third parties using forged no-objection certificates (NOCs).

According to the FIR No. 489/2023, both accused received large sums by bank transfer—₹84.77 lakhs to Arun Sachdeva and ₹68.31 lakhs to Sangeeta Sachdeva. The offences invoked included Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the IPC.

The Court critically evaluated the prosecution’s case and found that the foundation of the forgery allegation was unsubstantiated:

“The NOC allegedly forged was not even a prerequisite at the time of execution of the sale deed, nor is it recorded in the certified copy of the sale deed. There is no statement by the Sub-Registrar confirming such requirement.”

The Court observed that if the NOC was not required for the registration of the document, "there could be no occasion for forging it." The absence of such a requirement, coupled with no action by the Sub-Registrar, dispelled the inference of a deliberate criminal act.

Further, the accused had joined the investigation voluntarily for over six months before the FIR was even registered. Yet, they were arrested without notice under Section 41A of the CrPC, a fact that the Court found "contrary to law".

Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, the Court noted:
“The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Bail is the rule and jail is the exception.”

The Court emphasized that mere gravity of an economic offence is not a valid ground to deny bail indefinitely, especially after filing of chargesheet: “The general principle is that a person, who otherwise has roots in the society and is satisfying the other general conditions for grant of bail, should not be kept in continued judicial incarceration as a matter of punishment, even before conclusion of trial.”

The Court also noted the voluminous nature of evidence—over 1500 pages and 37 witnesses—and held that the trial would not conclude in the near future. The applicants had already been in custody for more than one year and four months.

Parity With Co-accused and Lack of Tampering Allegation

The Court highlighted that another co-accused, Sanjay Sachdeva, had already been granted bail. No specific allegation of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses was made against the petitioners.

Reiterating the settled position that bail must be considered with reference to the individual role, nature of evidence, and pre-trial custody, the Court found no compelling reason to continue incarceration.

The Delhi High Court granted bail to both petitioners on a personal bond of ₹50,000 each, with conditions such as not leaving the country without permission, not tampering with evidence, and informing the Investigating Officer of any change in address.

Justice Amit Sharma concluded: “Liberty survives by the vigilance of her citizens. The gravity of an offence cannot eclipse the presumption of innocence or the individual’s right to fair trial and liberty.”

This judgment serves as a powerful reiteration of the constitutional principles surrounding bail, liberty, and proportionality of pre-trial detention, especially in complex financial offence cases.

Date of Decision: May 9, 2025