the instant case, has a far-reaching effect on a definite number
of members of the public, who are around 1500 in number, as
on date and more are adding by the day.” (emphasis supplied)
53. The Supreme Court, in Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P, (2014) 16 SCC
508 – which was also a case of regular bail under Section 439, observed as
follows:
"16. xxx We are not oblivious of the fact that the liberty is a
priceless treasure for a human being. It is founded on the bed
rock of constitutional right and accentuated further on human
rights principle. It is basically a natural right. In fact, some
regard it as the grammar of life. No one would like to lose his
liberty or barter it for all the wealth of the world. People from
centuries have fought for liberty, for absence of liberty causes
sense of emptiness. The sanctity of liberty is the fulcrum of any
civilized society. It is a cardinal value on which the civilisation
rests. It cannot be allowed to be paralysed and immobilized.
Deprivation of liberty of a person has enormous impact on his
mind as well as body. A democratic body polity which is
wedded to rule of law, anxiously guards liberty. But, a pregnant
and significant one, the liberty of an individual is not absolute.
The society by its collective wisdom through process of law
can withdraw the liberty that it has sanctioned to an
individual when an individual becomes a danger to the
collective and to the societal order. Accent on individual
liberty cannot be pyramided to that extent which would bring
chaos and anarchy to a society. A society expects responsibility
and accountability from the member, and it desires that the
citizens should obey the law, respecting it as a cherished social
norm. No individual can make an attempt to create a concavity
in the stem of social stream. It is impermissible. Therefore,
when an individual behaves in a disharmonious manner
ushering in disorderly things which the society disapproves, the
legal consequences are bound to follow. At that stage, the
Court has a duty. It cannot abandon its sacrosanct obligation
and pass an order at its own whim or caprice. It has to be
guided by the established parameters of law". (emphasis
supplied)
54. The nature and gravity of accusations against the accused, in my
view, is serious. The grant of regular bail in a case involving cheating,
criminal breach of trust by an agent, of such a large magnitude of money,
affecting a very large number of people would also have an adverse impact
not only in the progress of the case, but also on the trust of the criminal
justice system that people repose. It would certainly not be safe for the
society. In case the applicant accused is granted regular bail, it is also likely
that he may tamper with the evidence/witnesses, or even threaten them
considering that the stake for the accused is high. It is also very much likely
that looking to the high stakes, the nature and extent of his involvement, and
his resources, he may flee from justice.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 18.10.2016
BAIL APPLNS. 1212/2016, 1221/2016 and 1222/2016
SUNIL DAHIYA
v
STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) ..
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
