NEW DELHI: Observing that the right to personal liberty of the accused becomes paramount if trial is unlikely to be completed in the near future, the Supreme Court has said bail must be granted in such cases.“It is a well-settled postulate of criminal jurisprudence that pre-trial incarceration cannot masquerade as punitive detention… This court must intervene to safeguard the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution… when a trial cannot be reasonably concluded in the near future,” a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu said.The bench granted bail to ex-secretary of Rajasthan Water Supply and Sewerage Management Board Shubhanshu Dixit, who has been in custody since Feb 17, when he was arrested in a graft case.
Accused were held for ‘jal mission’ irregularities
The court also granted relief to a person who was allegedly operating as a broker on behalf of the then cabinet minister of the Public Health Engineering Department, Rajasthan, Mahesh Chandra Joshi.The accused were arrested for their alleged involvement in massive financial irregularities in the execution of ‘Jal Jeevan Mission’, an ambitious joint initiative of the central and state govts intended to provide functional household tap connections for safe and adequate drinking water supply.
Share your thoughts in the comments
Be respectful · TOI community guidelines
Though the court accepted the plea of state govt that economic offences involving deep-rooted conspiracies must be viewed seriously, it granted relief to the accused.“Admittedly, the charges are yet to be framed and the trial is yet to commence for, inter alia, the following reasons: the investigation against some of the accused persons is still pending; two of the accused persons are absconding; and sanction under Section 19 of the PoC Act was granted on Sept 6 for the prosecution of six other co-accused persons who are public servants. Bearing in mind the sheer volume of evidence that must be led to prove the charges, the trial is bound to be a protracted exercise. In the conspectus of these aspects, we are of the view that it would serve no fruitful purpose to keep the appellants under further pre-trial custody. Resultantly, the present appeals succeed,” the court said.
