Summary
The Supreme Court granted bail to an accused who had not been arrested throughout the investigation and whose conduct did not indicate likely absconding or interference with trial. It reaffirmed the presumption of innocence and the general rule favouring bail, while stressing that bail remains a judicial determination on the facts. A humane approach and conditions reasonably capable of compliance were required. The allegations of cheating and cheque dishonour were left entirely for trial.
Issues
- Whether continued custody after filing of the charge sheet was justified despite non-arrest during investigation and the accused’s conduct.
Held
- Presumption of innocence and the general rule favouring bail guide judicial discretion. Courts must consider participation in investigation, risk of absconding or interference, antecedents and indigence, and adopt a humane approach consistent with personal dignity and Article 21. These principles do not require bail in every case. (¶¶ 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7)
- If arrest was unnecessary during investigation, a strong case should justify subsequent judicial custody. Here the appellant remained unarrested during the investigation and thereafter, obtained time to appear and did appear before the trial judge; no relevant antecedents or apprehension of absconding or hampering trial appeared. Bail should have been granted. (¶¶ 4, 11, 12, 17, 18)
- Bail conditions should not be so strict that compliance is impossible and release becomes illusory. The trial judge could fix reasonable conditions here. The Court expressed no opinion on the truth of the charge-sheet or complaint allegations. (¶¶ 7, 18, 19, 20)
Result
Appeal allowed; appellant granted bail on reasonable conditions to be fixed by the trial judge. Merits of the criminal allegations left open.