Incarcerated For More Than Maximum Period Of Sentence For Offences Alleged: Bombay HC Grants Bail To Sukesh Chandrashekhar
The Bombay High Court has granted bail to alleged conman Sukesh Chandrashekhar after considering his second period of incarceration under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (“MPID Act”).
The Court observed that he has already suffered seven years of imprisonment which was more than the maximum period of sentence that can be imposed upon him, therefore, under Section 436-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, he was entitled to be released on bail.
The Bench of Justice Manish Pitale observed, “Considering the second period of incarceration as starting from 09.10.2017 and adding the same to the earlier period of incarceration between 29.05.2015 and 10.09.2016, the total period of incarceration suffered by the applicant is about seven years and ten months. It is certainly more than the maximum period of sentence that can be imposed upon the applicant, even if he is convicted for the offences registered under the subject FIR…Under Section 436-A of the Cr.P.C., when an accused person suffers half of the maximum sentence that can be imposed, he is entitled to be released on bail on personal bond, with or without sureties. The only requirement is that the public prosecutor is to be heard and reasons in writing are to be recorded by the concerned court.”
Advocate Vikram Sutaria appeared for the Applicant while APP Mayur S Sonavane appeared for the Respondent.
Sukesh was arrested on May 29, 2015, for offences under Section 420, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 3 and 4 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 as also Section 3 of the MPID Act.
He submitted that the Supreme Court had released him on bail, on condition of depositing certain amounts, which was later cancelled due to non-fulfilment of the bail conditions. Since October 2017, Sukesh has continued to remain behind bars.
He also filed a bail application under the MPID Act which the Court also rejected on the ground that the applicant was arrested and behind bars in connection with the case pending at Delhi and that he was not formally taken into custody in the present case.
In this context, the Court relied on the judgment in Niranjan Singh v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote (1980 SC) and said “The second period of incarceration of the applicant begins from 16.04.2017. In any case, the Rojnama of the Designated Court under the MPID Act shows that he was produced before the said Court on 09.10.2017, while he was lodged in Tihar jail at that point in time. This Court specifically records that he was produced by the jail authority through the concerned Head Constable from Delhi. Even if there was no consequential formal order of the Designated Court under the MPID Act, on the said date of placing the applicant in judicial custody in the present case, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant has continued in custody in connection with the present proceedings pending before the Designated Court under the MPID Act, at least from 09.10.2017.”
Accordingly, the Court allowed the Application and released him on bail.
Cause Title: Shekhar Chandrashekhar v. State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-AS:26176)
Appearances:
Applicant: Advocates Vikram Sutaria, Sharvari Joshi and Agastya Desai.
Respondent: APP Mayur S Sonavane