NEW DELHI, Dec 27: The Delhi High Court recently stated that prolonged detention without a trial contradicts Article 21 of the Constitution, leading to the granting of bail to an individual arrested in a cheating case back in 2022.
Justice Amit Mahajan remarked that courts are generally required to release an accused on bail if they are enduring extended incarceration without a timely trial.
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution safeguards the right to life and personal liberty.
In this specific case, the judge acknowledged that charges had not yet been framed, the prosecution had repeatedly requested adjournments to submit a supplementary chargesheet, and it had been a year since the accused’s last bail application was rejected.
“The applicant has remained in custody for over two years. There is no expectation that the trial will conclude in the near future. Under these circumstances, continued incarceration due to the failure to examine witnesses violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India,” the court stated on December 24.
As a result, the court ordered the release of the individual on a personal bond of Rs 50 lakh, backed by two sureties.
The court highlighted that the law favors bail over imprisonment, aiming to harmonize the rights of the accused with the demands of the criminal justice system. Although the alleged offense was serious, the length of incarceration was a significant consideration.
The purpose of imprisonment is to ensure the accused appears for trial, and concerns about the individual fleeing can be managed by imposing suitable conditions, the court noted.
Furthermore, the court mentioned that the prosecution could issue a lookout circular against him.
The individual was arrested by the Delhi Police for allegedly defrauding a company of Rs 7 crore by generating fake payment receipts after placing substantial orders for rice containers.
According to the complaint filed by Police’s Economic Offences Wing, Sandeep Tilwani made 74 bookings for 640 rice containers with the company, with transportation costs amounting to Rs 11.2 crore, police reported.
Represented by advocate Utkarsh Singh, Tilwani contended that he was set up in this case, claiming that the complainant filed the FIR due to incurred financial losses.
The accused maintained that he merely acted as an intermediary between importers and companies offering freight services, asserting that his only function was to facilitate introductions. (PTI)
