Delhi High Court grants bail to man, says severity of allegations can't justify pre-trial jail

New Delhi: While stressing on the seriousness of economic offences, the Delhi High Court on Wednesday said that punishment should only be given after conviction, as the severity of allegations alone cannot justify pre-trial imprisonment.

Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhan made this statement while granting bail to the director of Parul Polymers Pvt Ltd, who was under investigation by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office for alleged violations of the Companies Act.

The court said that the trial would take a significant amount of time and saw no reason to further delay the petitioner's release from an unduly long period of pre-trial detention.

It clarified that economic offences should be treated seriously, and if the allegations against the petitioner and co-accused are proven in court, they should face appropriate punishment.

However, the court stressed that pre-trial incarceration cannot be justified solely based on the severity of the allegations.

The court ordered the release of the petitioner upon a personal bond of Rs 5 lakh and two sureties of the same amount and also imposed conditions requiring the investigating officer to request the appropriate authority to issue a Look-out-Circular in order to prevent the petitioner from leaving the country without the special court's permission.

The company and other accused individuals were accused of financial irregularities violating company laws.

The petitioner, who was never arrested during the investigation and proceedings, was taken into custody and sent to judicial custody after appearing before the special court on May 25, 2022, following the issuance of summons.

The court noted that the investigating officer did not arrest the petitioner throughout the six-year probe, and even when the final investigation report was filed, the officer did not request custody.

The court questioned the basis for the special court's decision to remand the petitioner in judicial custody, saying that the special judge misdirected himself.

It clarified that the petitioner was not under arrest when appearing before the special judge and said that the judge had only issued summons, not arrest warrants, upon taking cognisance of the offence.