Delhi High Court: In an application filed seeking bail during pendency of the trial in the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR dated 25-4-2024, for cheating, a Single Judge Bench of Arun Monga J., stated that taking into consideration the accused’s 9-month custody, slow trial progress, lack of flight risk, and no incriminating evidence against him continued detention served no purpose and would amount to punitive confinement before conviction, contrary to the settled principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception. The Court, thus, taking a wholesome view allowed the bail application.
Background:
In the present case the complainant submitted that the accused including BEE KBEE Prints (P) Ltd, its directors, and S.A.F. Impex had approached him between 2017 and 2019 seeking financial assistance due to an alleged financial crisis. Based on long-standing family relations, the complainant had advanced loans totalling Rs 60,00,000 through his company and HUF accounts. To repay the debt, the accused had issued three cheques: Rs 27,00,000, Rs 8,00,000 and Rs 25,00,000.
However, on presentation, all cheques were dishonoured with the remark “Exceeds arrangement”. Upon inquiry, it was discovered that the accounts were already classified as Non-Performing Assets (‘NPA’) at the time of cheque issuance. The complainant alleged that the cheques were issued knowingly and deliberately from NPA accounts with a dishonest intention to cheat and to gain wrongful advantage, and that no repayment was made despite repeated demands.
A FIR was filed under Sections 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC and chargesheet had been filed under Sections 406, 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC which led to arrest of the accused on 5-11-2024. The accused had been in judicial custody since 7-11-2024. Thus, the present application was filed before the Court.
Case Analysis and Decision:
The Court noted that the accused had submitted that he was falsely implicated in the FIR as he had ceased to be a director of Bee K Bee (P) Ltd in 2021, prior to the issuance of the disputed cheque which were provided as security for financial aid given in 2018 and 2019 by a co-accused, payments made of Rs 10,00,000 with regular interest were made and could be substantiated by bank records, the transactions were commercial in nature, involving part repayments and TDS deductions. The Court observed that while these submissions may hold merit, they remained matters to be adjudicated during trial.
The Court further observed that the accused had already remained in custody for approximately 9 months, and with the trial moving at a snail’s pace, prolonged pre-trial detention and slow progress of proceedings, further incarceration would serve no useful purpose, as the trial was unlikely to conclude in the near future. The Court noted that continued detention would amount to punitive confinement before conviction, contrary to the settled principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, especially when the accused is neither a flight risk nor a threat to the fairness of the trial. The Court on respondent’s submission that there was a risk of accused tampering with evidence noted that material evidence had already been seized and was securely in the custody of the prosecution, rendering such apprehension illusory.
The Court observed that the primary purpose of bail is to ensure the accused’s presence during trial. Further, the accused had been in custody since 7-11-2024 and had cooperated with the investigation and there had been no indication that he would abscond, tamper with evidence, or influence witnesses. The Court further observed that the accused had no criminal antecedents, was a permanent resident of NCR where he had lived for years with his wife and two children, and had deep societal roots, reducing likelihood of him fleeing from justice.
The Court noted that the investigation was complete, and the supplementary charge sheet did not attribute any role to him. Further, no incriminating material was recovered from him apart from a disclosure statement. The Court, thus, observed that the present application deserves to be allowed and directed the accused to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond and surety to the satisfaction of the Trial Judge/Duty Judge as the case may be and subject to the usual conditions.
[Sumant Batra v. State (NCT of Delhi), BAIL APPLN. 2596 of 2025, decided on 28-8-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioners: Madhav K. Sareen, Raunak Wahi, Vinay Sehrawat and R.P. Singh, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Priyanka Dalal, APP for the State. Vikas Pahwa, Senior Advocate with Sajaal Dhamija, Prince Assal and Deepak Kapoor, Advocates.
