Introduction:
The Orissa High Court, in a landmark ruling, ordered the release of a man accused of committing multiple financial frauds involving lakhs of rupees after he had spent over seven years in custody. The accused, Basudev Behera, was facing charges under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Odisha Protection of Interest of Depositors (OPID) Act for defrauding multiple individuals in a real estate scam. The Court’s decision to grant bail was primarily based on the fact that Behera had already served more than half of the maximum sentence prescribed for the most serious offence with which he had been charged, invoking Section 436-A of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), a provision that mandates the release of an undertrial after completing half the maximum sentence. The Court further underscored the importance of upholding the constitutional right to personal liberty and the right to a speedy trial, which are enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Case Background:
Basudev Behera, the petitioner, was arrested in 2017 and charged with multiple financial frauds as the proprietor of M/s. Satyam Sai Infratech Real Estate allegedly lured several individuals into investing large sums of money in lands that he failed to deliver. Despite receiving significant amounts of money from his customers, Behera did not fulfill his commitments, resulting in complaints and the lodging of five separate First Information Reports (FIRs). The charges against him included cheating, criminal intimidation, forgery, and default in repayment under the Odisha Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 2011.
In an effort to secure bail, Behera filed separate bail applications for each of the cases he was facing. While the High Court granted him bail in all cases, it was conditional upon the submission of cash securities. However, Behera struggled to fulfil these financial conditions and remained in custody, even though the bail had been granted.
After spending over seven years in jail, Behera moved the trial court seeking regular bail, citing Section 436-A of the CrPC, which mandates the release of an undertrial who has been in custody for more than half the maximum sentence for the offence they are charged with. However, the trial court rejected his application, stating that bail had already been granted but not executed due to his inability to furnish the cash security amount. This rejection prompted Behera to file a criminal miscellaneous petition before the Orissa High Court, urging his release based on the statutory rights afforded to him under Section 436-A of the CrPC.
Arguments of Both Sides:
The petitioner argued that his prolonged detention for over seven years, despite being granted bail, violated his statutory rights under Section 436-A of the CrPC. He contended that the statutory provision required his release as he had already served more than half of the maximum sentence for the most serious offence he was charged with. The petitioner also emphasised that his inability to meet the bail conditions, particularly the high cash security amounts, should not result in continued detention. Moreover, the petitioner pointed out that this situation contravened his constitutional right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, which includes the right to a speedy trial.
On the other hand, the state counsel argued that the petitioner had already been granted bail in all five cases, but his release had been delayed solely due to his failure to provide the prescribed cash security amounts. The state also contended that the trial court had already rejected the petitioner’s bail application because he was unable to comply with the imposed bail conditions, thus rendering his current petition untenable.
Court’s Judgment:
The Orissa High Court, while considering the petitioner’s prolonged detention, emphasised the mandatory nature of Section 436-A of the CrPC. The Court highlighted that the petitioner had already served more than half of the maximum prescribed sentence for the most serious offence he was charged with, which carried a maximum punishment of ten years under the Odisha Protection of Interest of Depositors Act.
Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra, in his judgment, referred to several landmark rulings by the Supreme Court, including Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI and Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, which underscored the importance of adhering to the provisions of Section 436-A of the CrPC. The Court observed that the provision mandates the release of undertrials who have completed more than half of the maximum sentence for the charge they face, irrespective of whether a formal bail application has been filed. The use of the word “shall” in the provision signified its mandatory nature, and the Court emphasised that delays in trials that are not attributable to the accused should not result in prolonged detention.
The Court also observed that the inability to meet bail conditions should not be used as a reason to continue detaining an undertrial. The petitioner’s inability to comply with the cash security requirement was not his fault, and it was clear that continued detention violated his statutory rights. The Court stressed that personal liberty, as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, is paramount, and it should not be subordinated to procedural entanglements such as the imposition of onerous bail conditions. The Court pointed out that prolonged detention without trial not only infringes upon the statutory rights under Section 436-A but also violates constitutional principles regarding the right to a speedy trial.
Finally, the Court ruled that the petitioner should be released on bail by the provisions of Section 436-A of the CrPC despite his failure to meet the prescribed bail conditions. The Court ordered that he be released on his bond, with or without sureties, in accordance with the statutory mandate.