Pre-Trial Detention Cannot Be Punitive; Bail is the Rule, Jail the Exception: Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Accused in ₹3.06 Crore Forgery Case

In a significant ruling balancing individual liberty and the need for judicial process, the Delhi High Court granted regular bail to Mohd. Sirajudeen @ M. Mohamed Sirajudeen, accused of forgery and cheating in a case involving alleged forged bank guarantees (BGs) worth ₹3.06 crores. The decision reinforces the principle that pre-trial detention must not serve as punishment, particularly in cases where custodial interrogation is no longer required.

"Prolonged Detention Violates Personal Liberty Under Article 21"
The Court, presided over by Hon'ble Justice Sanjeev Narula, emphasized that personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution must be protected, and refusal of bail without compelling reasons violates principles of proportionality and justice. Citing the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40, Justice Narula reiterated that bail is the rule, and jail is the exception, especially when the accused does not pose a flight risk or a threat to the trial process.

The Court observed: "Pre-trial detention amounts to pre-conviction punishment, which is contrary to the principles of justice. In the absence of compelling reasons, prolonged incarceration violates the accused’s constitutional rights."

The case arises out of an FIR (No. 0185/2017), registered on May 24, 2017, under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 120-B, and 34 IPC. The complainant, Intex Technologies (India) Ltd., alleged that the accused company, TSN Ecotech International Pvt. Ltd., and its directors, including the petitioner, submitted six forged bank guarantees totaling ₹3 crores to secure the supply of mobile phones and other goods on credit. When the complainant attempted to invoke the BGs after the accused company defaulted on payments, State Bank of India (SBI) denied their authenticity, terming them as forged.

The petitioner, who was allegedly appointed as the Managing Director of the company by the primary accused, T.N. Mohamed Sirajdheen, was accused of supervising the furnishing of the forged BGs and overseeing fraudulent financial transactions. He has been in custody since March 15, 2024, while the chargesheet was filed on June 10, 2024.

The High Court considered the following factors in granting bail to the petitioner:

The Court noted that the case against the petitioner was primarily based on documentary evidence, including bank guarantees, email communications, and financial records. These documents were already in the possession of the prosecution and did not necessitate further custodial interrogation.

"The allegations against the Applicant are largely documentary and can be tested during trial. Prolonged pre-trial detention is unnecessary in such cases," the Court observed.

Since the investigation had concluded and the chargesheet had been filed, the Court held that custodial detention of the petitioner was no longer warranted. It also noted that none of the other co-accused had been arrested, yet the chargesheet was filed without their custody.

The Court emphasized that there was no material to suggest that the petitioner posed a flight risk or would tamper with evidence or interfere with the trial process if released on bail.

The petitioner had already been in custody for 10 months, with no likelihood of the trial concluding expeditiously. The Court held that prolonged detention under such circumstances would violate the petitioner’s right to personal liberty and compromise his ability to mount an effective defense.

Referring to Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, the Court reiterated:
"The primary purpose of bail is to secure the presence of the accused during trial proceedings, and the denial of bail should not be used as a form of punishment before conviction."

The Court noted that the petitioner’s designation as Managing Director of the accused company was not reflected in the records of the Registrar of Companies (ROC), a key contention of the defense. While the Court refrained from making a determination on the merits, it acknowledged that such issues could only be resolved during trial.

The Court also addressed the prosecution’s argument that economic offences are serious and warrant denial of bail. Justice Narula clarified that while economic offences are indeed grave, their seriousness alone cannot justify denial of bail without sufficient evidence of flight risk, evidence tampering, or interference with justice.

The Court observed:
"Seriousness of allegations cannot be the sole ground to deny bail. The presence of the accused can be secured through reasonable conditions, ensuring that the trial is conducted fairly and expeditiously."

Conclusion: A Balance Between Liberty and Justice
The Delhi High Court’s decision in this case reaffirms the fundamental principle that pre-trial detention must not be punitive. It emphasizes that bail should not be denied without compelling reasons, especially when the accused does not pose a risk to the trial process. By granting bail to Mohd. Sirajudeen with stringent conditions, the Court has sought to balance the accused’s right to liberty with the need to ensure a fair and efficient trial.

Decision Date: January 14, 2025