The question posed before the Delhi HC was, whether the bail application, here concerned, had merits to be accepted by this honorable High Court. The present matter of Kashish Jain vs. The State, [BAIL APPLN.-1788/2020],was brought before Justice BrijeshSethi, who rejected the bail application stating that no grounds of the regular bail are met in the present case and further, nothing stated in this application opines about the merit of the case, which as per the Learned senior council for the petitioner, was suppose to be the main argument.
The petitioner here was 26 year old, young man. On 24th November 2018, he was taken into the judicial custody along with his parents, who are the co-accused in the case for the crime of cheating. After the completion of the investigation, the investigation agency filed the charge-sheet on 23rd January, 2019. The co-accused (parents of the petitioner) was granted interim protection by the court on 13th February, 2019, but the same was rejected for the petitioner on his earlier bail application, dated 31st October, 2019.This subsequent bail application was filed by the petitioner u/s 482 of Cr.P.C, to grant regular bail to the petitioner.
The council for the petitioner contended that, the there is no point in keeping the accuse under judicial custody when the investigation for the present matter is already complete and charge-sheet filed, the petitioner further contends that, even after the filing of the charge-sheet on January of 2019, no charges are yet framed due to which there had been a delay in the commencement of the trial, which adversely affected the petitioner.
As a reply to the contentions forwarded by the petitioner, the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State the the delay in the trial was not due to the investigation agencies fault, but it’s due to the incompliance of co-accuse in the investigation procedure &due to this the supplementary charge-sheet is yet to be filed.
The HC after considering all the submissions in this matter, came to a view that, the petitioner was a direct beneficiary of the cheated amount, he was involved as a co-applicant and had forged fake documents to get the loan form Cholamamdalam Ltd.. The HC agrees to the public prosecutors’ view on the cause of the delay of the commencement of the trial, where the court belived that, “There is no delay on the part of investigating agency in filing supplementary charge-sheet. Rather, it is because of the non-cooperation of the co-accused i.e. parents of the petitioner that the supplementary charge-sheet is not being filed.”
The HC after considering all the said contentions and forwarded opinions, the court dismissed the bail application calling that, “…no grounds for regular bail are made out at this stage. The bail application is, therefore, dismissed and stands disposed of accordingly.”