BAIL APPLN./2539/2023 of TRIKKUR VENKATACHALAM RADHAKRISHNAN Vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%Date of decision: 29[th]November, 2023+BAIL APPLN. 2539/2023, CRL.M.A. 20203/2023 (Ex. from filinglengthy synopsis)

TRIKKUR VENKATACHALAM

RADHAKRISHNAN

..... PetitionerThrough:Ms.Mukti Singh and Mr.Sunil Kr.Singh, Advocates.

versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

..... Respondent

Through:Ms.Shubhi Gupta, APP for the State.SI Ravinder Singh, PS Crime Branch.Mr.TanveerAhmedMirandMr.ArjunSyal,Advocatesforrespondent no.2/ complainant.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSALJUDGMENT

AMIT BANSAL, J. (ORAL)

BAIL APPLN. 2539/2023

1.The present application has been filed seeking grant of bail in FIR No.295/2022dated24[th]December,2022underSections408/409/420/467/468/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)registered at Police Station Crime Branch.

2.The case set up by the prosecution is as under: -

I.The present FIR arose from fraudulent transfer of property bearing

Signature Not Verified

no. 12C, New Friends Colony (West) by the complainant/ respondentno.2, who has since expired, in favour of the main-accused, one Mr.Awaneesh Chandra Jha (hereinafter the main-accused).

The ownership of the said property vested with the company JointInvestment Private Limited (JIPL), in which the respondent no. 2 heldmajority shares, to the tune of 8200 shares.

III.The main-accused was introduced to the respondent no. 2 by theapplicant. The applicant was in the employment of the respondent no.2 for period of 30 years till 2017 and later joined the employment ofthe main-accused from 1[st]May, 2022.

IV.The allegation qua the applicant is that he facilitated the illegaltransfer of property by obtaining the digital signatures of therespondent no.2 and handing it over to the main-accused which wasthen used by the main-accused to transfer 8200 shares of JIPL in hisfavour.

3.Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicantleft the employment of the respondent no. 2 way back in 2017. Hence, hehad no access to the digital signature of the respondent no. 2. Therefore,offences under Sections 408/409 of the IPC cannot be made out.

4.It is stated that in the present FIR, the Chargesheet has already beenfiled and the investigation qua the applicant herein stands completed.Therefore, custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required.

5.The counsel submits that the applicant is an elderly man of 64 yearsof age and has been in custody for almost year. It is further submitted thatdetention in custody pending completion of the trial would cause greathardship to the applicant, especially considering his advanced age.

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed By:DINESHKUMARSigning Date:30.11.202319:17:24

Furthermore, it is submitted that bail is the general rule, and jail is anexception. Reliance in this regard has been placed on the Supreme Court’sjudgment in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40.

6.Per Contra, Learned APP appearing on behalf of the Statevehemently opposes the grant of bail as the applicant has been charged, interalia, of offences under Sections 409/467/120B of the IPC which are seriousoffences. It is further submitted that the applicant misused his longemployment with the respondent no. 2 to cheat him of his property.

7.Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 2 also opposes thegrant of bail on the ground that the applicant had an active role to play in thefraudulent transaction and mere filing of the Chargesheet does not diminishthe allegations made against the applicant.

8.Furthermore, he submits that the charges against the applicant hereinare of serious nature and hence the reliance placed by the applicant onSanjay Chandra (Supra) is misplaced as the charges in that case carried amaximum punishment for term of seven years. In this regard, reliance hasbeen placed on the judgments of the Supreme Court in The State of Bihar v.Amit Kumar, (2017) 13 SCC 751 and Virupakshappa Gouda and Anr. v.State of Karnataka and Anr., (2017) 5 SCC 406

9.I have heard the counsels for the parties and perused the material onrecord.

10.It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure thepresence of the accused person during the trial. The object is not to punishthe accused person before the trial. In this regard, reference be made to theobservations of the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra (Supra). The relevantextracts are set out herein below:-

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed By:DINESHKUMARSigning Date:30.11.202319:17:24

“21.In bail applications, generally, it has been laiddown from the earliest times that the object of bail is to securethe appearance of the accused person at his trial byreasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neitherpunitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must beconsidered punishment, unless it is required to ensure thatan accused person will stand his trial when called upon. Thecourts owe more than verbal respect to the principle thatpunishment begins after conviction, and that every man isdeemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.22.From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detentionin custody pending completion of trial could be cause ofgreat hardship. From time to time, necessity demands thatsome unconvicted persons should be held in custody pendingtrial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases,“necessity” is the operative test. In this country, it would bequite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined inthe Constitution that any person should be punished in respectof any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that inany circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upononly the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left atliberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances.”

11.Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 has sought to distinguish thejudgment of the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra (Supra) by placingreliance on the judgments of Amit Kumar (Supra) and VirupakshappaGouda (Supra) to submit that the charges in Sanjay Chandra (Supra)carried maximum punishment for term of seven years, whereas thecharges in the present case are more serious. However, it is pertinent to notethat in the present case, the charges are yet to be framed and at this stage, itcannot be conclusively stated that charges under Sections 408 or 409 of theIPC can be framed against the applicant, since he had left the employment ofthe respondent no. 2 in 2017, fact which has not been rebutted by the

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed By:DINESHKUMARSigning Date:30.11.202319:17:24

prosecution.

12.In respect of the present FIR, the applicant was arrested on 25[th]December, 2022 and hence has been in custody for almost year. It is also amatter of record that the investigation qua the applicant is complete and thatthe Chargesheet has been filed.

13.In the present case, the evidence is primarily documentary in natureand already within the custody of the prosecution, therefore, there is nolikelihood of the applicant tampering with the evidence or influencing thewitnesses, if released on bail.

14.It is also to be noted that the trial is likely to take long period oftime, taking into account the voluminous documents and the number ofwitnesses to be examined. It is also pertinent to note that the applicant is anelderly man of 64 years of age and his conduct in jail has been satisfactory.

15.Considering the totality of aforesaid facts and circumstances andkeeping in mind the age of the applicant and the fact that the trial is likely totake some time, the applicant cannot be kept under incarceration for anindefinite period of time. Therefore, this Court considers it fit to grant bail tothe applicant.

16.For the forgoing reasons, the application is allowed and the applicantis directed to be released on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount subject to the satisfaction ofthe Trial Court and further subject to the following conditions:

i.The applicant shall deposit his passport with the Trial Court and notleave the country without the prior permission of the Court.leave the country without the prior permission of the Court.

ii.The applicant shall appear before the Trial Court as and when thematter is taken up for hearing.matter is taken up for hearing.

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed By:DINESHKUMARSigning Date:30.11.202319:17:24

iii.The applicant shall join investigation as and when called by theInvestigating Officer (IO) concerned.Investigating Officer (IO) concerned.

iv.The applicant shall provide his latest/fresh mobile number(s) to the IOconcerned, which shall be kept in working condition at all times andshall not switch it off or change the mobile number(s) without priorintimation to the IO concerned.concerned, which shall be kept in working condition at all times andshall not switch it off or change the mobile number(s) without priorintimation to the IO concerned.

v.The applicant shall provide his permanent address to the Trial Court.The applicant shall intimate the Court by way of an affidavit and tothe IO regarding any change in her residential address.The applicant shall intimate the Court by way of an affidavit and tothe IO regarding any change in her residential address.

vi.The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity and shall notcommunicate with or come in contact with any of the prosecutionwitnesses or tamper with the evidence of the case.communicate with or come in contact with any of the prosecutionwitnesses or tamper with the evidence of the case.

17.Needless to state that any observations made herein are purely for thepurposes of deciding the question of grant of bail and shall not be construedas an expression on the merits of the case.purposes of deciding the question of grant of bail and shall not be construedas an expression on the merits of the case.

18.Furthermore, it is made clear that the present judgment is confined tothe facts and circumstances of the present applicant and shall have nobearing on the bail applications of the other co-accused.

19.Accordingly, the application, along with all pending applications, isdisposed of.

NOVEMBER 29, 2023

AMIT BANSAL, J.

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed By:DINESHKUMARSigning Date:30.11.202319:17:24