The Delhi High Court recently emphasized that indefinite incarceration without trial is a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution and granted bail to a man accused in a 2022 cheating case.
Justice Amit Mahajan noted that when an accused faces extended detention without a timely trial, courts are generally duty-bound to release them on bail. Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty under the Indian Constitution.
In the present case, the court observed that charges were yet to be framed, the prosecution had repeatedly sought adjournments to file a supplementary chargesheet, and a year had passed since the accused’s last bail plea was rejected.
“The applicant has been in custody for over two years, and there is no prospect of the trial concluding soon. Continued detention for an indefinite period due to delays in witness examination infringes Article 21 of the Constitution,” the court stated on December 24.
Consequently, the accused was granted bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs 50 lakh with two sureties.
The court highlighted that the legal system favors granting bail over prolonged imprisonment, aiming to strike a balance between the accused’s rights and the justice system’s requirements. While acknowledging the gravity of the offense, the court said extended incarceration was a significant consideration.
It added that the primary purpose of detention is to ensure the accused’s presence during the trial, and the risk of absconding could be mitigated by imposing stringent conditions. The prosecution was permitted to issue a lookout circular against the accused.
The accused, arrested by Delhi Police for allegedly defrauding a company of Rs 7 crore through fake payment receipts for bulk rice container orders, had been in custody since his arrest.
The Economic Offences Wing had filed an FIR, accusing Sandeep Tilwani of booking 74 shipments for 640 rice containers, amounting to Rs 11.2 crore, and issuing fraudulent receipts.
Tilwani, represented by advocate Utkarsh Singh, claimed he was falsely implicated due to the complainant’s financial losses. He argued that his role was limited to acting as a middleman, introducing importers to freight service providers.
