Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40

Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, 2012 case study|| Case summary|| Bail

Introduction 

In the present case (Sanjay Chandra v. CBI), the Apex Court has discussed whether the refusal to grant bail and pre-trial detention of the accused infringes on their right to liberty under Article 21. Also this Court by referring to various earlier decisions of this Court pointed out certain matters to be considered by the Court while using their discretion in granting bail in non-bailable offences.

What we will learn

1. What are the considerations to be taken by a judge while using his discretion in granting bail in a Non-bailable offence? 

2. Whether the refusal to grant bail to an accused and taking him into judicial custody infringes of his personal liberty provided by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 

Facts

This is an appeal under Article 136 against the common order of the Delhi High Court which rejected all the four bail applications filed by the appellants. All the appellants were alleged to have criminally conspired with the public servants to get UAS licence fraudulently to be eligible to get into the business of telecom. Earlier the Special Judge CBI also refused to grant bail.

Issue 

Whether the HC was right in refusing the bail?

Arguments of Counsel appearing for the appellants

1. Grant of bail is the rule and its denial is an exception.
2. The accused has cooperated throughout the investigation.
3. Arrest not made during the investigation shows that there was no threat of tampering with the witnesses.
4. Ld. Judge did not give adequate reasons for rejecting the bail.
5. Trial Judges have no power to send a person summoned u/s 87 to custody.
6. The CBI manual provides for the refusal of bail only in heinous crimes.
7. The gravity of the offence is to be determined by its punishment and not other measures such as the amount in five case
8. Only bar for bail under S.437 in offence punishable with death or life sentence
9. Custody during the pendency of trial is not punitive in nature, but preventive and must be opted only when the charges are serious.

Arguments of Counsel appearing for the respondent

1. The nature of the offence is very serious as it affects the economic fabric of the country.
2. Quantum of punishment could not be the only determinative factor for the magnitude of an offence
3. Relevant consideration for the grant of bail is the interest of society at large
4. Earlier this Court had refused to entertain the SLP (Sharad Kumar v. CBI) filed by one of the co-accused.
5. The trial is proceeding on a day-to-day basis, hence is no delay in the trial.
6. Since some of the witnesses were employed by the accused, there exists a threat of tampering with them.
7. Bail should be denied in all cases of corruption which pose a threat to the economic fabric of the country.

Ratio Decidendi 

1. An earlier SLP was rejected because at that time no charges were framed by the trial court.
2. The object of bail is not to punish someone or to protect someone but to ensure his appearance at the trial.
3. The prosecution failed to place any material regarding the possibility of tampering with evidence by the accused.
4. Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan (2005)- 
1. Detention during the pendency of trial is not violative of Article 21 of the Constitution, as it is authorised by criminal law.
2. Bail shall be granted in a non-bailable offence where the prosecution failed to establish a primary facie case
5. State of Rajasthan v. Balchand (1977)- Bail shall be refused where circumstances suggest that the accused will flee from justice or will thwart the course of justice or repeat the offence or threaten the witnesses.
6. Just as liberty is precious to an individual so is society's interest in the maintenance of peace, law and order.
7. Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor (1978)- 
1. The Court have discretionary jurisdiction to grant bail to the accused however as said by Benjamin Cardozo, the judge cannot be completely free as he cannot innovate something at his pleasure, he has to exercise this power with great care and caution by balancing the right of liberty of an individual.
2. 3 important elements to determine whether the accused will appear are- the charge, nature of evidence and punishment if convicted
3. The Court should enquire into the antecedents of the accused, particularly about his actions during bail to determine whether he will tamper with the witnesses.
8. Babu Lal Singh V State of UP, 1978-  Personal liberty cannot be deprived except for State necessity under Article 19 and by a reasonable, even-handed law and law made for community good
9. Considerations by the Court while using his discretion in granting bail:-
1. Nature of accusation 
2. Nature of evidence
3. Severity of punishment if convicted
4. Character, behaviour and means of accused
5. Circumstances of offence
6. Possibility of appearance of the accused
7. Reasonable threat of tampering with witnesses
8. Larger interest of public or State
9. Prima facie case
10. Nature and gravity of the charge
11. The danger of justice being thwarted
12. Delay in concluding the trial.
10. Gurucharan Singh V. State, 1978:- Two paramount considerations are the possibility of the accused fleeing from justice and tampering with the witnesses.

Decision/Order

1. As the investigation had already been completed, no need to remain in custody for further investigation.
2. Bail shall be granted on a personal bond with two solvent sureties each of 5 lakh to the satisfaction of Special Judge, CBI on the following conditions:-
1. Appellants should not induce or threaten anyone related to the case.
2. Appellants should appear on the date fixed for the hearing
3. They will not dispute their identity
4. Surrender their passport
5. CBI has the liberty to modify the conditions.
3. Appeal allowed and disposed of.