Sanjay Chandra v CBI 

The case of Sanjay Chandra v Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) deals with significant questions concerning the refusal of bail and its impact on the personal liberty of an individual under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court of India, in this case, outlined the principles that guide the judiciary when deciding on bail applications in non-bailable offences. The case is particularly important for its detailed discussion on balancing individual liberty against societal interests and the factors to be considered by courts while granting or refusing bail.

Facts of Sanjay Chandra v CBI 

The appellants in this case, including Sanjay Chandra, were accused of criminal conspiracy with public servants to fraudulently obtain Unified Access Service (UAS) licenses to enter the telecom business. These acts were alleged to have caused significant financial loss to the public exchequer.

The appellants had applied for bail before the Special Judge (CBI) and the Delhi High Court, but both courts refused their applications. Consequently, they filed an appeal before the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution, challenging the High Court’s order denying bail.

Key Issues

The key issues raised in Sanjay Chandra v CBI were:

1. What are the considerations to be taken into account by a judge while exercising discretion in granting bail in a non-bailable offence?
2. Does the refusal of bail and pre-trial detention violate the accused’s right to liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution?

Arguments by the Appellants

1. Bail as the Rule: The appellants argued that the grant of bail is a rule, and its denial is an exception. Pre-trial custody should not be punitive in nature.
2. Cooperation with the Investigation: It was submitted that the appellants had fully cooperated during the investigation and had not been arrested during the investigative process, indicating that there was no threat of tampering with evidence or witnesses.
3. No Adequate Reasons for Refusal: The appellants contended that the High Court’s order did not provide adequate reasoning for rejecting their bail applications.
4. Gravity of the Offence: They argued that the gravity of an offence should be determined by its prescribed punishment, not the financial magnitude of the case.
5. Custody During Trial: The appellants emphasised that custody during the trial is preventive, not punitive, and should only be resorted to in cases involving serious allegations.
6. CBI Manual: Referring to the CBI manual, the appellants claimed that bail should be denied only in cases involving heinous crimes punishable by death or life imprisonment.

Arguments by the Respondents (CBI)

1. Economic Impact: The CBI argued that the alleged offence was of a grave nature as it affected the economic fabric of the country.
2. Quantum of Punishment Not Sole Determinant: The respondents contended that the magnitude of an offence cannot be measured solely by its punishment; societal interests must also be considered.
3. Tampering with Witnesses: Since some witnesses were employees of the appellants, there was a significant risk of tampering with their testimonies if bail was granted.
4. Day-to-Day Trial: The respondents noted that the trial was proceeding expeditiously, leaving no undue delay.
5. Corruption Cases: The CBI highlighted the need for stricter scrutiny in cases of corruption as they pose a serious threat to societal interests.
6. Rejection of Earlier SLP: The respondents cited the Court’s earlier refusal to entertain a special leave petition (SLP) filed by a co-accused, which had affirmed the rejection of bail at that stage.

Sanjay Chandra v CBI  Judgement

The Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v CBI  allowed the appeal, reversing the decision of the High Court, and granted bail to the appellants under certain conditions. The Court emphasised the following principles:

1. Objective of Bail: The Court reiterated that the primary objective of bail is to secure the presence of the accused during the trial and not to inflict pre-trial punishment.
2. Presumption of Innocence: An accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and pre-trial detention should not interfere with this presumption.
3. No Evidence of Tampering: The prosecution failed to present substantial evidence suggesting that the accused would tamper with witnesses or evidence.
4. Precedents: The Court referred to several key judgements to guide its decision:
   • Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan (2005): Detention during trial is not violative of Article 21 if authorised by law.
   • State of Rajasthan v. Balchand (1977): Bail should be denied only if there is a likelihood of the accused fleeing, thwarting justice, or threatening witnesses.
   • Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor (1978): Discretionary powers for granting bail must be exercised cautiously, balancing personal liberty with societal interest.
   • Babu Lal Singh v. State of UP (1978): Personal liberty can only be deprived for State necessity under reasonable and equitable law.

Key Considerations for Granting Bail

The Court in Sanjay Chandra vs CBI laid down specific factors to be considered while exercising discretion in granting bail:

1. Nature of the Accusation: Seriousness of the charges levelled against the accused.
2. Evidence Quality: Prima facie strength of the evidence against the accused.
3. Severity of Punishment: Possible punishment if the accused is convicted.
4. Character and Behavior of the Accused: The antecedents and conduct of the accused.
5. Circumstances of the Offence: Context in which the alleged crime was committed.
6. Likelihood of Appearance: Probability of the accused attending trial proceedings.
7. Tampering Risk: Reasonable apprehension of the accused tampering with witnesses or evidence.
8. Public Interest: Larger societal or State interest in denying bail.
9. Delay in Trial: Extent of delay in concluding the trial.
10. Gravity of Charges: Nature and impact of the alleged offence on society.

Conditions Imposed on Bail

The appellants were granted bail with the following conditions:

1. Execution of a personal bond with two solvent sureties, each of ₹5 lakh.
2. No inducement, threat, or promise to any person associated with the case.
3. Mandatory appearance on all dates of hearing.
4. No disputes over their identity.
5. Surrender of passports.
6. Liberty for the CBI to seek modification of bail conditions if necessary.

Conclusion

The decision in Sanjay Chandra v CBI is a landmark judgement that underscores the importance of individual liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution while dealing with bail applications. The judgement clarified that denial of bail must be based on valid considerations such as the risk of flight, tampering with evidence, or thwarting justice. The Court’s approach reflects a commitment to balancing the rights of the accused with societal interests, ensuring justice and fairness in the administration of criminal law.