LexPRAMOD KUMAR SAXENA versus UNION OF !NOIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008) 13 S.C.R. 697 PRAMOD KUMAR SAXENA A. V. UNION OF !NOIA & ORS. (Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 58 of 2007) SEPTEMBER 19, 2008 B [C.K. THAKKER AND O.K. JAIN, JJ.) Bail - Grant of - To under-trial prisoner since more than 1 O years - A/legation that he, in capacity of Managing Direc- tor of an Investment Company, had committed systematic fraud c and cheated several innocent investors of crores of rupees - 48 criminal cases against him in 6 different States for various offences under the /PC and also under the NI Act - He filed writ petition u!Art. 32 of Constitution seeking protection of his fundamental rights and release on bail - Held: Petitioner is D 'Y entitled to limited relief in special circumstances of the case , keeping in view the fact that he is in jail since more than 10 years - Direction issued that if Petitioner applies for bail, an appropriate Court will release him on bail on his executing a bond to the satisfaction of such Court - Prayer for relief of E consolidation of all cases and their trial in one Court, how- ever, not accepted - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 406, 409 and 420 rlw s.1208 - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - s.138- Constitution of India, 1950 -Art.32. 1' Code of.Criminal Procedure, 1973. - s.436A - Under- F trial prisoner detained since 1998 - Seeking bail on basis of s. 436A - Held: s.436A came into force only in 2006 - Since no retrospective effect given to s.436A; it does not apply to facts bf the present case - Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005. G According to the prosecution, the Writ Petitioner, in capacity of Managing Director of an Investment Company, committed systematic fraud and cheated several innocent investors of crores of rupees. Several FIRs were lodged 697 H 698 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S. C.R. A against the Petitioner and 48 cases were instituted against him in six different States for commission of offences pun- ishable under ss. 406, 409 and 420 r/w s.1208, IPC and also under s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. B Since the offences allegedly committed by the Peti- tioner were non-bailable, police authorities arrested him and he was taken in custody. The Petitioner is an under- trial prisoner since more than ten years i.e. since August, 1998 and he has approached this Court for protection of his fundamental rights under Arts. 14, 19, 20 and 21 of the c Constitution by an appropriate direction to the Respon- dents so that he may be able to come out of jail as also make arrangement for his defence. The Petitioner submitted before this Court that even D though he has been ordered to be enlarged on bail in some of the cases, he is unable to come out since in other 'I' cases, either the investigation is in progress or the Peti- tioner has not been produced before the Magistrate for trial; that even if the Petitioner is convicted in some of the E cases for some offences, he may have to remain in jail only for few years and that therefore, even if it is assumed for sake of argument that the Petitioner will be convicted, incarceration suffered by him by now might be more than the sentence which could be imposed on him. It was, therefore, submitted that an appropriate direction may be F issued so that the Petitioner may be released on bail. The Petitioner also invited attention to s.436A of CrPC, which provides maximum period for which an un- der-trial prisoner may be detained, and on that basis sub- G mitted that during pendency and final disposal of the crirni- nal cases, he may be ordered to be enlarged on bail or. his executing a personal bond. Partly allowing the Writ Petition and issuing Cf)rt~in )' directions, the Court H PRAMOD KUMAR SAXENA v. UNION OF 699 INDIA & ORS. HELD: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of A the case, the Petitioner deserves some relief from this Court. True it is that as per the allegation of the prosecu- tion, various offences have been committed by the peti- tioner and those cases are pending at different places. But +- another equally important fact also cannot be overlooked B that he is in jail since more than ten years. Prima facie, the submission of the Petitioner is well-founded that only if he comes out of jail that he may be able to make arrangement for repayment of amount and also to defend cases regis- tered against him. It would be appropriate in the facts and c circumstances of the case, if limited relief is granted
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.