Sudhir Kumar Lad vs CBI Issue SC Grants Bail After Prolonged Custody

Banking & Finance

Employment & Services

Sudhir Kumar Kad vs CBI Issue SC Grants Bail After Prolonged Custody

Issue

The case revolves around the denial of bail to Sudhir Kumar Kad and Dinesh Kumar, former bank officials accused in a criminal case of embezzlement of approximately ₹4 crore from Punjab National Bank, Kanthal Branch, Ujjain. The appellants challenged the rejection of their bail applications by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, arguing that they had been in custody for a prolonged period and that the trial had not progressed.

The primary legal question before the Supreme Court was whether continued detention of the accused was justified, especially in light of the delay in the trial and lack of any evidence showing obstruction by the accused.

Petitioners’ Side (Petitioners': Sudhir Kumar Kad & Dinesh Kumar)

Represented by senior counsel Mr. Vikas Singh, the appellants submitted the following key arguments:

1. Long Incarceration Without Trial Progress:

The appellants had been in judicial custody since 24 February 2020, a period of over 15 months at the time of hearing. Despite this, the trial had not even progressed beyond the stage of framing of charges.

2. No Allegation of Non-Cooperation:

The CBI never alleged that the appellants failed to cooperate during the investigation, and there were no claims of tampering with the evidence or attempting to influence witnesses.

3. Investigation Completed:

The investigation by the CBI was already complete, and thus the continued detention had no bearing on the investigation

4. High Court Erred:

The Madhya Pradesh High Court had refused bail based on the seriousness of the allegations alone, without considering either the delay in trial or the actual conduct of the accused.

5. Right to Liberty:

The appellants argued that continued incarceration without trial progress violates their right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution

Respondent’s Side (CBI)

Represented by Additional Solicitor General Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) opposed the appeal on the following grounds:

1. Serious Economic Offence:

The CBI emphasized the gravity of the offence, involving embezzlement of public money through abuse of an official position by the bank managers, which should not be treated lightly.

2. Delay Partly Due to Pandemic:

Some delay in the progress of the trial was due to COVID-19 restrictions, and not entirely attributable to the prosecution.

3. Prosecution’s Efforts:

The prosecution claimed it had made sincere attempts to begin examination of witnesses, but faced delays from various procedural aspects.

4. Flight Risk and Influence:

There remained a concern that granting bail could result in the accused influencing witnesses or tampering with the evidence, though no concrete instance of such conduct was cited.

Deals & Matter Corner

The Delhi High Court restrained DTIDC from

Delhi High Court appeal challenges the disputed

Articles & Publications

The article, authored by Sidhant Dhingra, Senior

Postgraduate seats lie vacant even as specialist

Blogs

The Supreme Court of India made a

Why do we need a new law

Court’s Observations

After hearing both sides, the Supreme Court bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Krishna Murari made the following key observations:

Trial Not Commenced:

The Court found that despite an earlier order dated 03 February 2021, directing the prosecution to produce crucial witnesses within three months, not a single witness had been examined by the time of the current hearing.

No Active Obstruction by Accused:

The Court noted no allegations or records showing that the accused caused any deliberate delay or obstruction in trial proceedings.

Violation of Bail Guidelines:

The Court emphasized that bail cannot be denied indefinitely when:

The investigation is complete.
The trial has not commenced.
The accused have not attempted to misuse bail or interfere with proceedings.

Fundamental Right to Liberty:

The continued detention of the accused, despite a non-moving trial, was seen as unfair and a violation of a constitutional right to personal liberty.

Bail Conditions Can Control Risk:

The Court acknowledged concerns regarding witness influence or absconding, but stated that appropriate bail conditions could be imposed to address these concerns effectively.

Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the earlier orders of the Madhya Pradesh High Court denying bail. The Court passed the following directives:

Grant of Bail:

Both appellants, Sudhir Kumar Kad and Dinesh Kumar, were ordered to be released on bail in connection with Crime No. RC0082018A0019/2018 registered by the CBI, Bhopal

Bail Conditions:

Each appellant was to furnish a surety bond of ₹1 lakh.
Two sureties of an equal amount were required, one of whom must be a resident of Ujjain.
The passports of the appellants were to be confiscated and deposited with the CBI Court, Indore.
The petitioners were barred from entering Ujjain District, except for attending court hearings.
They were prohibited from contacting or influencing witnesses.
They must attend all court hearings regularly.
The Presiding Judge of the CBI Court, Indore, was given the liberty to impose additional conditions as deemed fit.

Violation Consequences:

If any of the bail conditions were violated, the CBI would be free to move before the Supreme Court for cancellation of bail.

Expedited Proceedings Encouraged:

While granting bail, the Court highlighted the need for timely justice and implicitly reminded the prosecution to avoid further delay in the trial.

Deals and Matter

Sapphire Media Services vs Delhi Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors.

Court weighs 7 years of custody, contradictory testimonies, and co-accused parity against gravity of murder charge in hanghai-30 bar brawl case.

Learn More →

Delhi Development Authority vs. Tejpal (Supreme Court, 2024)

Advisory

Delhi Development Authority vs Tejpal Supreme Court rules that possession taken through memo and deposited compensation prevent lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.