The Delhi High court recently comprising of a bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad while granting bail to a man booked for a cheating case of 2 Crore remarked that the Petitioner cannot be kept endlessly behind bars when the right to speedy trial is a concomitant of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, it can be presumed that one the facets would also be that the accused cannot be kept in custody indefinitely. (Nancy Gill V. State)
Facts of the case
The Petitioner dishonestly represented that the Prime Minister of India had started a programme wherein the King of Brunei wanted to start 14 Super Specialty Hospitals in different parts of India, with the first opening in Ahmedabad, Gujrat. The Petitioner had stated that she had met Dr. Ajja Binti Kifli, cousin sister of the King of Brunei in U.S.A., who wanted to visit political leaders in India and gift them jewellery. The Complainant was induced into accepting the order worth more than one crore rupees without taking any advance and agreed to give 5% commission to the Petitioner and her family.
The Complainant accordingly purchased the gold and diamonds required for the jewellery, and handed over the same to the Petitioner and her family at their home. Thereafter, the Petitioner informed the Complainant that she was flying to Amritsar. When the Complainant later tried to contact the Petitioner on her phone, it was switched off. The Complainant then visited the house of the Petitioner where the family of the Petitioner allegedly fraudulently told him that the Petitioner had ran away with the jewellery.
At this juncture, the Complainant realized that the Petitioner and her family cheated the Complainant of jewellery worth more than Rs. 2 crores. On the basis of this, the instant FIR was registered against the petitioner.
The Petitioner has previously moved this Court for regular bail, however, the application was withdrawn as chargesheet had been filed. Bail application before the Ld. M.M. was rejected. The Petitioner has now approached this Court for regular bail.
Contention of the Parties
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has submitted that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case and has been in judicial custody since 07.05.2018. He has argued that the Complainant, with active connivance of the local police, has instituted this case against the Petitioner and that other accused persons, i.e. the Petitioner’s husband, two daughters and son, have been given a clean chit.
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that no recovery has been made from the Petitioner and that the chargesheet has already been filed.
The learned APP for the State, has vehemently opposed the instant bail application on the grounds that the Petitioner has played a crucial role in the commission of the offences alleged in the instant FIR. She has submitted that the investigation is not complete yet and the Petitioner is not cooperating with the investigating officers. Ms. Sharma has stated that the money that has been fraudulently procured has been deposited in bank accounts situated in Dubai and that the details of the same are yet to be revealed.
He submitted that the probability of the Petitioner absconding and threatening witnesses as well as tampering with evidence is high, given the fact that the jewellery has not been recovered.
Courts observation & Judgment
The bench taking note of the facts of the case and contention of the parties remarked, "The material on record in the instant case does disclose that the Petitioner played a crucial role in the commission of the alleged offence and had masterminded the plan to cheat the Complainant out of more than two crores of rupees. Furthermore, the plan hatched by the Petitioner and other co-accused reveals that it involved methodical and intricate planning as can be discerned from the fact that the Petitioner purchased another SIM to impersonate the cousin sister of the King of Brunei. The Petitioner has also been uncooperative during the investigation, and has also resorted to levelling allegations against the Complainant and her family members, including her husband and her mother ’’
The bench granting bail to the accused noted that the Petitioner has been in custody since 07.05.2018, with the exception of her being out on interim bail from 14.05.2020 to 23.11.2021 on the ground of the HPC guidelines formulated by this Court in wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The bench further noted that the Petitioner cannot be kept endlessly behind bars. When right to speedy trial is a concomitant of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, it can be presumed that one the facets would also be that the accused cannot be kept in custody indefinitely. The Petitioner has already spent more than one-fourth of the maximum period of imprisonment in custody.
The court granting baail to the accused noted, “There is no allegation that the petitioner has cheated anybody else. The apprehension that the Petitioner will flee from justice can be dissipated by ensuring that appropriate conditions are imposed. Furthermore, the possibility of the Petitioner threatening the Complainant, her own family members and other witnesses can also be done away with by way of imposing conditions. ”
The bench imposing few conditions on the grant of bail to the accused remarked that the Court deems it necessary to note that if any instance of the Petitioner threatening her family members or the Complainant comes to light or if false cases are filed against the complainant or his family members by the petitioner or at her instance, bail granted to the Petitioner by this Court would stand cancelled forthwith.
With the above observations, the instant bail application was disposed of, along with the pending application(s), if any.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
