The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Tarun Dutt vs Govt. of NCT, Delhi consisting of Justice Amit Mahajan held that an undertrial prisoner cannot be detained in custody for an indefinite period as it would cause deprivation of his right to legal defence.
Facts:
This application was made u/s 439 CrPC for regular bail in an FIR registered at police station Vasant Kunj under sections 420/120B/34 of the IPC and section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act. The FIR was launched on a complaint by Shri Matadeen Gora, who claimed he was dishonestly enticed by the promise of insurance policy bonuses and gratuities on lapsed policies from 2013 to the present.
Procedural History:
In a disclosure statement provided by one of the accused, the present applicant was arrested on 14.01.2021. The applicant joined Arvind and Sunil in a bogus insurance bonus scam and defrauded innocent victims by promising them a large bonus. The applicant impersonated the Senior Director of Income Tax and MCA, according to the complaint. In the charge sheet, it was stated that the accused had taken 39 lakhs from the complainant in various accounts, out of which the applicant took 9,04,350/- in the account of his brother-in-law, and 2,70,600/- in the account of his brother – Keshav Dutt. Sunil and Arvind were granted bail by this court, while Ratnesh Chauhan was released on temporary bail.
Contentions Made:
Petitioner: It was contended that the petitioner worked for the primary accused and was wrongfully charged. All four other co-defendants were already out on bail, but the applicant was languishing in jail. The Trial Court denied his bail application on the erroneous supposition that he would tamper with the inquiry. Part of the investigation was still ongoing. So, the trial would likely not proceed and take a long time to end.
Observations of the Court:
The Bench first stated that:
“The Court has to ascertain if the accused satisfies the triple test while considering any application for bail i.e., whether he is a flight risk, the likelihood of tampering with evidence and influencing of witnesses.”
It further noted that the entire incriminating data looked to be documentary in nature and was already with the investigative agency. The claim that the applicant would influence witnesses and tamper with evidence if released on bail was a blatant allegation.
Considering the applicant's two children, ages 6 and 11 months, the court said the accused's absconding or being a flight risk was a bald claim. Moreover, the same could be taken care of by putting appropriate conditions. Further, the co-accused persons, who had a similar role, had already been admitted on bail.
It held that:
“The undertrial prisoners cannot be detained in custody for an indefinite period. The speedy trial in the present case does not seem a possibility. Keeping the applicant in further incarceration would cause deprivation of his right to legal defence. The maximum punishment for offences alleged against the applicant is seven years and the object of Jail is to secure the appearance of the accused persons during the trial. The object is neither punitive nor preventive and the deprivation of liberty has been considered as a punishment. The applicant cannot be made to spend the entire period of trial in custody especially when the trial is likely to take considerable time.”
The decision of the Court:
The applicant was directed to be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond for a sum of ₹50,000 with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court / Duty Metropolitan Magistrate, subject to certain terms and conditions. This application was dismissed accordingly.
Case Title: Tarun Dutt vs Govt. of NCT, Delhi
Coram: Justice Amit Mahajan
Case No: BAIL APPLN. 2521/2022, decided on 26th December 2022
Advocates for Petitioner: Mr. Viraj R. Datar, Senior Adv. with Mr. Sudershan Joon & Mr. Saurav Joon
Advocates for Respondent: Ms. Richa Dhawan, APP for the State with Insp. Deep Chand, PS Vasant Kunj
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
