"Calcutta High Court Reasserts Importance of Human Liberty: Grants Bail to Accused Despite Supreme Court's Intervention
In a significant development, the Calcutta High Court has once again granted bail to an accused, reaffirming its earlier order that was set aside by the Supreme Court. The High Court, emphasizing the sacrosanct nature of human liberty, stated that it holds utmost value for every civilized individual.
The bench comprising Justices IP Mukerji and Biswaroop Chowdhury clarified that while considering bail, it is not necessary for the court to delve into the intricacies of the charges or the depth of the offense. Instead, the court's focus should be on evaluating the gravity of the offense based on the charges framed, the accused's potential guilt, the magnitude of the offense, and the potential sentence if convicted.
The case in question arose from a dispute involving misappropriation of funds, where the accused was alleged to have misappropriated crores of rupees collected from the public. Interestingly, the complainant did not file a complaint until 2020, despite the alleged misappropriation occurring since 2011.
The petitioner had already spent 135 days in custody when she applied for bail before the High Court earlier this year. At that time, one of the co-accused had already been granted bail. The Supreme Court had dismissed a special leave petition challenging the bail order on October 31, 2022. Taking these circumstances into account, the High Court had initially granted bail to the petitioner.
However, the State was dissatisfied with the High Court's decision and approached the Supreme Court with another special leave petition, which was subsequently allowed. On March 3, the apex court set aside the bail order and remanded the matter back to the High Court.
In justifying its decision to reaffirm the bail order, the Calcutta High Court referred to several judgments of the Supreme Court, which emphasized the invaluable nature of human liberty, the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, and the principle that commission of an economic offense does not automatically disentitle an accused from obtaining bail.
The Court further noted that the investigating agency had promptly conducted a thorough investigation, including seizing relevant documents and tracking bank accounts, after the criminal complaint was filed in 2020. Considering the circumstances, the Court observed that any potential evidence that the petitioner could have destroyed would likely have been destroyed by now.
Given that the accused had not absconded for more than 12 years and had surrendered her passport to the investigating agency, the Court found little reason to believe that she would do so now. The Court emphasized that unless concrete evidence is presented demonstrating the need for further charges or the accused's ability to tamper with evidence, a mere assertion of requiring more investigation is insufficient.
Based on these considerations, the Calcutta High Court granted bail to the petitioner, subject to a bond of ₹10,000 and two sureties.
The petitioners were represented by Senior Advocate Ratnanko Banerjee, along with Advocates Ayan Bhattacharya, Abhijit Chowdhury, and Aditya Ratan Tiwary. Advocates Sandipan Ganguly, Arnab Sardar, Anurag Sardar, and Sayan Mukherjee appeared on behalf of the de-facto complainant."
Click Here to: Download/View Related File
TAGS: "Calcutta High Court Reasserts Importance of Human Liberty: Grants Bail to Accused Despite Supreme Court's Intervention In a significant development the Calcutta High Court has once again granted bail to an accused reaffirming its earlier order that was set aside by the Supreme Court. The High Court emphasizing the sacrosanct nature of human liberty stated that it holds utmost value for every civilized individual. The bench comprising Justices IP Mukerji and Biswaroop Chowdhury clarified that while considering bail it is not necessary for the court to delve into the intricacies of the charges or the depth of the offense. Instead the court's focus should be on evaluating the gravity of the offense based on the charges framed the accused's potential guilt the magnitude of the offense and the potential sentence if convicted. The case in question arose from a dispute involving misappropriation of funds where the accused was alleged to have misappropriated crores of rupees collected from the public. Interestingly the complainant did not file a complaint until 2020 despite the alleged misappropriation occurring since 2011. The petitioner had already spent 135 days in custody when she applied for bail before the High Court earlier this year. At that time one of the co-accused had already been granted bail. The Supreme Court had dismissed a special leave petition challenging the bail order on October 31 2022. Taking these circumstances into account the High Court had initially granted bail to the petitioner. However the State was dissatisfied with the High Court's decision and approached the Supreme Court with another special leave petition which was subsequently allowed. On March 3 the apex court set aside the bail order and remanded the matter back to the High Court. In justifying its decision to reaffirm the bail order the Calcutta High Court referred to several judgments of the Supreme Court which emphasized the invaluable nature of human liberty the presumption of innocence until proven guilty and the principle that commission of an economic offense does not automatically disentitle an accused from obtaining bail. The Court further noted that the investigating agency had promptly conducted a thorough investigation including seizing relevant documents and tracking bank accounts after the criminal complaint was filed in 2020. Considering the circumstances the Court observed that any potential evidence that the petitioner could have destroyed would likely have been destroyed by now. Given that the accused had not absconded for more than 12 years and had surrendered her passport to the investigating agency the Court found little reason to believe that she would do so now. The Court emphasized that unless concrete evidence is presented demonstrating the need for further charges or the accused's ability to tamper with evidence a mere assertion of requiring more investigation is insufficient. Based on these considerations the Calcutta High Court granted bail to the petitioner subject to a bond of ₹10 000 and two sureties. The petitioners were represented by Senior Advocate Ratnanko Banerjee along with Advocates Ayan Bhattacharya Abhijit Chowdhury and Aditya Ratan Tiwary. Advocates Sandipan Ganguly Arnab Sardar Anurag Sardar and Sayan Mukherjee appeared on behalf of the de-facto complainant."
