SANJAY CHANDRA VS.

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

ISSUE
Shall the Applicant/Accused be released on bail?
Is seriousness of the charge shall be the ground for refusal of bail?
RULE
The legal provision governing the issue framed is provided under section 439 of Code of
Criminal Procedure.
Under section 439 of Cr.P.C., the High Court or Court of Session are granted special powers
regarding bail, exercising which the Court may direct any accused person who is detained in
custody to be released on bail if the offence is of the nature as specified under section 437(3) and
while granting bail the court may impose conditions which it consider necessary for the purpose
of granting bail.
The Court is also granted the power under this section to set aside or modify any condition
imposed by the Magistrate while releasing any accused person on bail.
This power is however subjected to the proviso that before granting bail to any accused person
who is accused of an offence triable exclusively by the Court of Session, or if not so triable by
the Court of Session but is punishable with life imprisonment, a notice of the bail application
moved by the accused shall be given to the Public Prosecutor as well, unless the court is of the
opinion that it is not practicable to give such notice. Such reason shall also be recorded in
writing.
Subject-clause (2) of this section further provide that the High Court or the Court of Session may
also direct that the bail required by a police officer or Magistrate be reduced incase it is granted
by a police officer or Magistrate.
ANALYSIS
The appellant was facing trial in respect of offences under section 420B, 468, 471 and 109 of
IPC and section 13(2) read with section 13(i)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi rejected the Bail Application filed by the Appellant. The
Appellant moved to the High Court of Delhi by filing application under section 439 of the
Cr.P.C. and the same was also rejected by the learned Single Judge. Aggrieved by the same
dismissal, the appellant preferred appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
The factors for refusal of granting bail included-
1. The seriousness of charge
2. The nature of evidence in support of charge
3. The sentence likely to be imposed upon conviction
4. The possibility of interference with witnesses
5. The objections raised by the prosecuting authorities
6. The possibility of absconding from justice.
In the instant case, the main contention against the appellant for refusal to be released on bail is
the ‘seriousness of the charge’ as the alleged offences are economic offences.
The court referred to various judicial precedents on this point and observed that the provisions of
Cr.P.C. confers the discretionary jurisdiction on the criminal courts in matter of granting or
refusing bail to the accused persons pending trial or in matter of appeal against convictions,
which the court shall exercise with great care and caution by balancing valuable right of liberty
of an individual and the interest of the society in general.
The court took into consideration the observation made by this Hon’ble Court in the landmark
judgement of Moti Ram Vs. State of M.P.1 regarding pre-trail detention, wherein it was held
that-
“14. The consequences of pre-trial detention are grave. Defendants presumed innocent are
subjected to the psychological and physical deprivations of jail life, usually under more onerous
conditions than are imposed on convicted defendants. Equally important, the burden of his
detention frequently falls heavily on the innocent members of his family.”
CONCLUSION
The Apex Court disposed of the appeal in favor of the appellant by granting bail subject to
certain conditions and answering the first issue framed in affirmation.
Regarding the second issue, the court made exemplary observation and pointed out that mere
seriousness of the offence alleged shall not be the ground for refusal of granting bail. The court
expressed that undoubtedly the seriousness of the charge is one of the relevant considerations
while considering bail applications, however it cannot be the sole criteria. If the former factor
will be taken as the only test, then there can never be the balancing of Constitutional rights

1
(1978) 4 SCC 47
In my personal opinion, no circumstance shall be compelling enough to detain the under-trial
accused person in jail custody for an indefinite period. Long and unreasonable detention,
especially on a ground like seriousness of the offence charged with, is nothing but a mockery of
judicial system.