Strong Case Needed to Jail Accused Not Arrested During Investigation: Supreme Court Grants Bail in Cheating Case

In January 2016 the complainant lodged an FIR alleging that the appellant had cheated him of more than Rs. 37 lakhs, offences under Sections 419, 420, 406 and 506 IPC, and had stopped payment of an Rs. 18 lakh cheque; a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act followed (paras 9-10). The charge sheet was filed in August 2016; he was not arrested during the investigation (para 11). The High Court declined to quash the FIR but gave him time to appear; he appeared on 24 April 2017 and was taken into judicial custody, and the trial judge and the High Court rejected bail (paras 12-13). The State did not oppose bail; the complainant did (paras 8, 15-16).

The Court began from two postulates: the presumption of innocence, and bail as the general rule with jail the exception — basic principles that "appear to have been lost sight of" (para 2). Relevant factors include whether the accused was arrested during investigation, whether he cooperated and did not abscond, whether he is a first-time offender, and his poverty or indigent status, which Parliament recognised in the Explanation to Section 436 and in Section 436A CrPC (para 4). A judge dealing with remand must adopt "a humane attitude", given the accused's dignity, Article 21 and prison overcrowding (para 5). Bail need not be granted in every case, but the discretion "must be exercised judiciously and in a humane manner and compassionately", and conditions must not make bail "illusory" (para 7). Without examining the allegations, the Court found that the appellant was not arrested during seven months of investigation and was given time to appear, so there was no apprehension that he would abscond or hamper the trial, and nothing showed earlier involvement in any illegal activity (para 17).