Ramkrishan Upadhyay

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, June 18

While upholding the decision of a trial court, Swati Sehgal, Additional Sessions Judge, has said that the directions of the High Powered Committee of the Punjab and Haryana High Court for the release of undertrial prisoners are not mandatory in nature, rather it is left to the discretion of the court concerned to consider whether undertrial prisoners are to be released on interim bail or not.

Arshad, a resident of Meerut, UP, filed a revision petition before the Sessions Court after his bail plea was dismissed by the trial court on the ground that his case does not fall within the criteria prescribed by the High Power Committee of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

Arshad is facing charges under Sections 419 and 420 of the IPC read with Section 120-B IPC. The police alleged in the FIR that the accused, in a conspiracy with the co-accused, cheated the complainant by way of impersonation and induced the latter to disclose his credit card number, OTPs and caused him a financial loss of Rs4 lakh.

He filed a bail application seeking relief of interim bail for 90 days before the trial court in compliance with the directions of the Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.1 of 2020 and the directions issued by the High Power Committee. The counsel for the accused argued that the application for relief of interim bail was wrongly declined by the Magistrate holding that the case of the revisionist does not fall in the criteria prescribed in the above guidelines, as the offence for which he is lodged in the Jail is punishable for more than seven years.

The counsel for the revisionist argued that a perusal of the FIR revealed that no offence attributed to the revisionist is punishable with punishment of more than seven years.

The public prosecutor argued that the allegations levelled against the revisionist were serious and grave in nature.

After hearing of the arguments, the court said the opening line of the directions of the High Powered Committee of the Punjab and Haryana High Court for the release of undertrial prisoners clearly revealed that the directions were not mandatory in nature, rather it was left to the discretion of the court concerned to consider whether undertrial prisoners were to be released on interim bail or not. The revisionist is charged under sections 419, read with Section 120-B, and Section 420, read with Section 120-B, IPC. The cumulative sentences in both provisions provide imprisonment beyond seven years. Thus, also the benefit of recommendations of the High Powered Committee for the release of undertrial prisoners cannot be granted to the revisionist.

Keeping in view the magnitude of the offence and that the white-collar crime was committed in a calculated manner by the accused, the interim bail of the accused was declined by the trial court and the bail application was declined by ASJ, Chandigarh. In view of this, there is no illegality in the order passed by the trial court holding that the case of the revisionist does not fall in the criteria of guidelines as prescribed by the High Powered Committee, the court further says.