-
by Admin
07 May 2024 2:49 AM
In a recent judgment delivered by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN, the Delhi High Court highlighted the importance of the presumption of innocence and safeguarding liberty while granting bail to the accused. The judgment pertains to a bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the petitioner, who faced charges under Sections 420/406/467/468/471/120B IPC (Indian Penal Code).
The accused was alleged to have defrauded banks and submitted forged documents related to financial transactions. The case involved complex financial dealings and allegations of submitting fraudulent documents to secure loans.
The key observation made by the court in the judgment was, "Detention is not supposed to be punitive or preventive. The seriousness of allegations or the availability of material in support thereof are not the only considerations for declining bail."
The court emphasized that bail should not be denied merely due to the gravity of the alleged economic offenses and that each case should be considered individually. The judgment cited previous Supreme Court decisions, including Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40, and P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2020) 13 SCC 791, which stressed the importance of bail in safeguarding personal liberty.
The court also noted that the accused had been in custody since March 2, 2021, and that the investigation had been completed with charge-sheets filed. It concluded that the continued detention of the accused was unnecessary, especially considering the presumption of innocence and the protracted trial ahead.
The petitioner was granted regular bail with stringent conditions, including a personal bond and two sureties, restrictions on leaving Delhi/NCR, surrendering any passport, appearing before the trial court when required, maintaining specified mobile numbers, and refraining from influencing witnesses.
Date of Decision: October 04, 2023
MUKESH KUMAR vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
