Bail – Offences of pecuniary nature – Factors to be considered – Appellant-complainant filed FIR u/ss.406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, IPC, s.409 added later, alleging that he had supplied foodgrains to four accused persons including respondent No.1 (operating under different names), but he was paid only ₹5,02,57,000/- out of the total sum of ₹11,52,38,156/and; the accused conspired with each other, prepared forged documents with false and fabricated addresses, including Aadhaar Cards, and cheated him – Respondent No.1 was arrested after absconding for over one and a half years – Bail rejected by Sessions Judge – High Court granted bail to Respondent No.1 on the ground of parity with co-accused persons – Challenge to the validity of:
Held: Impugned order set aside – The value of life and liberty of members of society is not limited only to their ‘person’ but would also extend to the quality of their life, including their economic well-being – Various factors taken into consideration while dealing with the application for bail in the context of heinous offences such as likelihood of offences being repeated, danger of justice being thwarted by grant of bail, criminal antecedents of the accused, potential threat to life and liberty of victims/witnesses must necessarily be weighed while dealing with the alleged offenders’ pleas for grant of bail in offences of pecuniary nature also, where innocent people are cheated of their hard-earned monies by conmen, who make it their life’s pursuit to exploit and feast upon the gullibility of others – Respondent No.1 is a habitual offender – The number of diverse and unconnected aliases, fake IDs and the deliberate changes of identity, including his father’s name, clearly manifest his nefarious intention to dupe innocent victims and cheat them – He was granted bail earlier but chose to indulge in the same activities once again, resulting in the registration of multiple FIRs over the years – He is a career criminal and a menace to society – High Court did not even take his past antecedents into consideration – Similarly, his conduct in the context of the pending case was not noted – Having secured bail in one of the FIRs, respondent No.1 chose to abscond, resulting in issuance of a non-bailable warrant, which also brought to light the fact that his surety was not to be found – High Court ought not to have blindly extended the parity principle to him without considering the particular and distinctive features of his individual case. [Paras 19-22, 24]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.29, 209, 323 – One of the grounds that weighed with the High Court was that the offences against respondent No.1 were triable by a Magistrate: Held: High Court overlooked the fact that the offences now alleged against respondent No.1 include offences u/s.409 IPC and s.467 IPC also – Punishment for offences under these provisions can extend to imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term up to ten years – Similarly, some of the other offences entail a possible sentence of imprisonment over three years – A Metropolitan Magistrate has the same powers as a Magistrate of First Class while a Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is equivalent to a Chief Judicial Magistrate – Thus, it would always be open to a Magistrate, if he is of the opinion that any of the offences in the case are exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions, to commit the case to a Court of Sessions u/s.209 or s.323 – Under s.323, such power can be exercised by the Magistrate even during the course of the trial – Therefore, the assumption of the High Court that the case on hand is triable by a Magistrate is premature. [Paras 13, 14]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.