Magnitude or gravity of offence can't be only ground for denying bail: Delhi High Court

The magnitude or gravity of the offence cannot be the only criterion for denial of bail, the Delhi High Court held as it granted bail to two men accused of duping people to the tune of ₹240 crores [Sunder Singh Bhati v The State]..Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that the mere vague belief that the accused may thwart the investigation cannot be a ground to prolong the incarceration of the accused in the instant case. “The magnitude of the offence cannot be the only criterion for denial of bail. The object of bail is to secure the presence of the accused at the time of trial; this object is, thus, neither punitive nor preventative, and a person who has not been convicted should only be kept in custody if there are reasons to believe that they might flee from justice or tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses. If there is no apprehension of interference in administration of justice in a criminal trial by an accused, then the Court should be circumspect while considering depriving the accused of their personal liberty" the Court held..The two men, Sunder Singh Bhati and Rajesh Mahto, were accused of duping hundreds of people on the promise that if they invested in the company belonging to the accused, it would fetch them returns of 200 per cent a year. They told people that their company was registered with the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), and their plan is to expand it on the lines of Ola and Uber.On a complaint by one Dharmendra Singh, the Economic Offences Wing of the Delhi Police booked the duo under several sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), charging them with cheating and fraud.It was revealed that nearly 900 complaints were pending against the accused and their company and the total amount collected from investors was estimated to be around ₹240 crore..The Court noted that the two men were arrested in 2020, therefore, they have been in custody for over a year while chargesheets and supplementary chargesheets have been filed against them.The single-judge said that all the evidence available is documentary in nature and in custody of the investigating agency, and whether or not the money they cheated from public was entrusted to the petitioners is a matter of trial that cannot be taken into consideration at this juncture.“This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that continued custody of the Petitioners is no longer required and that both the Petitioners should be enlarged on bail.”Justice Prasad directed the appellants to furnish a bail bond of ₹1,50,000 each as well as sureties of the like amount..While advocates Pradeep Singh Rana, Ankit Rana, Abhishek Rana, Nitish Pande and Kumar Piyush Pushkar appeared for the accused, Additional Public Prosecutor Amit Chadha appeared for the state..[Read Judgment]