'Consequences of pre-trial detention grave in nature'

New Delhi: Noting that the consequences of pre-trial detention are grave in nature, the Delhi High Court has observed that keeping an undertrial in custody would impact his right to defend himself during trial and that he will be clearly denied the right to a fair trial which is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

According to legal news website Live Law, Justice Chandra Dhari Singh made the observation while granting bail to one Vikas Chawla accused of cheating HDFC Bank as well as BMW Financial Services to the tune of several crores of rupees by using forged and fabricated documents

and emails.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh made the observation while granting bail to one Vikas Chawla accused of cheating HDFC Bank as well as BMW Financial Services to the tune of several crores of rupees by using forged and fabricated documents and emails.

Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 5th August, 2021 and was in custody since then. It was submitted that the investigation of the case was completed and Chargesheet was also filed. He also argued that all the incriminating evidences and materials against the petitioner were documentary in nature and that there was no chances of the petitioner tampering with the same.

It was also submitted that arrangement of availing credit facilities from the Complainant bank continued from 9th January 2014 to till February, 2020, for which re-payments along with interest of Rs 13.27 crore were made by the Accused Company to BMW India Financial Services Private Limited from time to time. It was also submitted that the Accused Company had made repayments of Rs 600 crore approximately to Complainant bank over the course of their business relations.

Pahwa also argued that the Investigating Officer had issued notices under Sec. 91A of the Cr.P.C on 22rd March 2021, 16th March 2021 and 7th June 2021, to which the Accused company had filed a reply dated 3rd July 2021. It was argued that a counterblast to order dated 22nd June 2021 passed by the court below whereby the investigating officer was directed to withdraw the notice under Sec. 91 of the Cr.P.C, the Investigating officer arrested the Petitioner on 5th August 2021 and was since then languishing in judicial

custody.

On the other hand, it was argued by the State that the Petitioner was previously also involved in a case of UPPCL Employees' Provident Fund scam and that if he is released on bail, he may commit similar offences.