0

The purpose of bail is not punitive or preventive; it is primarily intended to ensure the presence of the accused during the trial: Delhi High Court on 2nd June 2023

Blog , ,

Facts of the case

Malvinder Mohan Singh, the former promoter of Religare Enterprises Limited, has been granted bail by the Delhi High Court. FIR No. 50/2019 BAIL APPLN. 2810/2021, The bail pertains to his alleged involvement in the Religare Finvvest scam, which amounts to Rs. 2,397 crores.

Singh, along with Shivinder Mohan Singh and Sunil Godhwani, allegedly conspired to make Religare Finvest Limited (RFL) provide unsecured loans amounting to Rs. 2,397 crores to shell companies. These loans were given without proper documentation and on a non-arms’ length basis. Subsequently, the shell companies intentionally defaulted on the repayments.

The Economic Offence Wing of the Delhi Police registered FIR 2019 based on a complaint by Manpreet Singh Suri, the authorized representative of Religare Finvest Limited. The FIR was filed under sections 409(criminal breach of trust by public servant) 420(Cheating), and 120B( criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code.

Courts Analysis and Decision

The Delhi high court on 2nd June 2023 held after referring to various cases and precedents said, the severity of an offense can be considered when considering whether to grant bail, but it should not be the sole criterion for denying bail.  The court further said, the purpose of bail is not punitive or preventive; it is primarily intended to ensure the presence of the accused during the trial. The fundamental principle highlighted in the referred judicial pronouncements is that a person who has community ties and meets the general conditions for bail should not be subjected to prolonged judicial imprisonment as a form of punishment prior to the conclusion of the trial.

 In the current case, the court believes that granting bail to the applicant, with appropriate conditions to protect the prosecution’s interests, would not cause any significant prejudice to the prosecution’s case before the trial court. This is especially true when considering that other co-accused individuals have already been granted bail.

Judgement Reviewed by A single judge bench of Justice Amit Sharma

PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement:

Click here to review the judgement

Written by – Anushka Satwani

 

 

0

When the crime of murder is committed, an amicable solution between the parties is unwarranted-Gujarat High Court denies bail

Blog ,

Naransinh Amarsinh Bihola v. State of Gujarat… 
Bench: Honourable Justice Samir J. Dave

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 21006 of 2022

Date-23/12/2022

Facts

The bench of Justice Samir J. Dave, J decided that when such a serious crime as murder is committed, amicable settlement is unwarranted as it equates to impeding or tampering with the witnesses or the evidence. In the current case, the accused had submitted a request for bail after being charged with crimes punishable by Sections 302(murder) 307(attempt to murder) and  section114 of the Penal Code, 1860. As per section 114,

“Whenever any person who if absent would be liable to be punished as an abettor, is present when the act or offence for which he would be punishable in consequence of the abetment is committed, he shall be deemed to have committed such act or offence”

Although the ability to grant bail under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 is discretionary, the Court noted that this authority must be used wisely.

Judgement

According to the Court, it has long been understood that being held in custody while a trial is ongoing can result in significant hardship. Sometimes it is necessary to hold certain innocent people in custody until trial in order to ensure their appearance at the trial. In these situations, the necessity standard is used. The Court further ruled that punishing someone for an offence for which they have not been found guilty or depriving them of their liberty under any circumstances based solely on the suspicion that they will tamper with the justice system would be quite at odds with the concept of personal liberty guaranteed by the Constitution in this country.

The Court noted that the complainant has filed an affidavit stating that the matter is amicably settled between the parties and if the accused is released on bail, he has no objection. The Court said that such practice is unwarranted, and it amounts to tempering with the evidence or witnesses, when such a serious offence of murder is committed. Thus, the Court held that such an affidavit on oath filed by the complainant cannot be considered, looking to the gravity and severity of the offence committed by the accused person. Hence, the Court rejected the bail application.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY AMIT ARAVIND

click here to view judgement

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

1 … 6 7 8