Sita Ram Pandey vs State
1995 Latest Caselaw 116 Del

JUDGMENT

Mohd. Sharnim, J.

(1) This is an application by the petitioner for release on bail.

(2) Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Lekhi, Senior Advocate, has contended that the petitioner is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is a fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that a person is presumed to be innocent till his guilt is proved. Yet, the learned Magistrate by .imposing the condition that the petitioner be released on bail on his payment of a sum of Rs. 1.23 crores declared him guilty even before he was tried on the basis of the alleged offences against him. It is tantamount to compelling the petitioner to be a witness against himself.

(3) The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his arguments has led me through Gudikanti Narasimhulu and others v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh , Babu Singh and others v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, and Shalik Layak v. The State, (A1981 Crl.L.J. 954).

(4) The learned Pp, Mr. B.T.Singh, on the other hand, has contended that the learned Magistrate while granting bail to the petitioner did not impose any condition suo motu. In fact, the condition to deposit the sum of Rs. l-23 crores was imposed at the instance of the petitioner who was ready to deposit the same Along with up-to-date interest if some time was granted to him to arrange for the said amount by selling and disposing of certain properties which he owned in his name as a Managing Director of a public limited company. It was on the above undertaking that the petitioner was released on bail for a period of one month i.e. from September 28,1994 to October 27,1994. Thus, according to the learned Pp the said undertaking given by the petitioner himself cannot be treated as a condition imposed by the learned Magistrate.

(5) The learned Pp has also led me through an order passed by this Court dated November 29,1994 when the petitioner moved this Court for the modification of the order passed by the learned Magistrate after the rejection of his application by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated November 2,1994. A perusal of the same reveals that the petitioner again gave an undertaking before this Court in the following words:- "LEARNED counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner will continue his efforts to make payment to other members of the Society and there after if it is considered appropriate he may be granted bail."

(6) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Pp for the State at sufficient length and have very carefully examined their rival contentions and have given my anxious thoughts thereto.

(7) It is fully manifest from above that the petitioner himself undertook to pay the sum of Rs. 1.23 crores vide his undertaking before the Magistrate as is manifest from the order dated September 28,1994 and then again before this Court as is abundantly clear from the order dated November 29,1994 passed by this Court.

(8) There is another side of the matter. The petitioner as is crystal clear from the order dated September 28,1994 gave an undertaking before the learned Magistrate that he would make arrangement of the amount by selling off certain properties. It was in the above circumstances that the petitioner was granted one month's time by the learned Magistrate and released on interim bail. However after availing the concession of the interim bail granted to him the petitioner again moved the learned Magistrate for modification of the said order and for release on bail on the ground that he could not arrange the money as he was not in a position to sell out the properties as there was a restraint order issued by the High Court with regard to the sale of the said properties. If this was so, the petitioner should have informed the learned Magistrate that he was not in a position to sell out the properties as there was an injunction order operating against him issued by the Court. The-petitioner thus misinformed the court and secured an order of interim bail for a period of one month on the ground of said misrepresentation.

(9) The petitioner, as per the prosecution version, floated a group housing society under the name and style Friends Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. and collected a sum of Rs. 1.50 crores from the members of the said society on the pretext that he would build 300 dwelling units. However to their dismay and horror they found that he had diverted the said amounts and invested the same in his other company known as Sri Ram Housing Finance and Investment of India Ltd. bearing interest at the rate of 18% per annum.

(10) In view of the above I do not see any force in the present petition.

(11) Learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of. his arguments has cited the following authorities. I have very carefully examined the same, yet I find they are not applicable to the facts of the present case. halik Layak v. The State, (1981 Crl. L.J. 954)....." Thus, any condition, I which has no reference to the fairness or propriety of the investigation or trial, cannot be countenanced as permissible under the law". 2. Gudikanti Narasimhulu and others v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh .."..."Bail or jail?" at the pre-trial or post-conviction stage belongs to the blurred area of the criminal justice system and largely hinges on the hunch of the bench otherwise called judicial discretion". 3. Babu Singh and others v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, . .."Reasonableness postulates intelligent care and predicates that deprivation of freedom by refusal of bail is not for punitive purpose but for bi-focal interests of justice to the individual involved and society affected".

(12) In the above stated circumstances the petition is dismissed.