Mere Prolonged Incarceration Not A Ground For Bail In Successive Application Absent Change In Circumstances: Punjab & Haryana High Court
The High Court held that while a second or successive regular bail application is not barred per se, in the absence of a substantial change in circumstances since the earlier rejection, prolonged custody alone cannot justify the grant of bail, particularly where the earlier rejection has attained finality.
Justice Manisha Batra, Punjab & Haryana High Court
The Punjab and Haryana High Court declined to grant regular bail to an accused facing prosecution in a serious economic offence, holding that prolonged incarceration by itself does not constitute a ground, unless a substantial change in circumstances warrants reconsideration of bail in a successive application.
The Court was hearing a petition seeking regular bail in a case arising out of an investigation conducted by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office into alleged financial irregularities involving multiple companies and individuals.
A Bench of Justice Manisha Batra observed: “Though a second/successive regular bail application cannot be rejected solely on the ground of maintainability thereof, but for such a petition to succeed, the petitioner is required to show some substantial change in circumstances. In the considered opinion of this Court, however, he has not been able to point out any such substantial change”.
Background
The prosecution case stemmed from an investigation ordered into the affairs of a group of companies on allegations of large-scale siphoning of public funds. The investigation culminated in the filing of a complaint treated as a report under the Code of Criminal Procedure, arraying several companies and individuals as accused.
The petitioner was summoned to face trial for offences, including those under the Companies Act relating to fraud, which carry stringent statutory conditions governing the grant of bail. He was taken into custody during the course of proceedings and had remained incarcerated for a considerable period.
An earlier application for regular bail had been rejected by the High Court through a reasoned order. The challenge to that order was also dismissed by the Supreme Court. The present petition was filed as a second successive bail application, primarily on the ground of prolonged incarceration and delay in trial.
Court’s Observations
At the outset, the Court reiterated that a second or successive bail application cannot be rejected merely on the ground of maintainability. However, it emphasised that for such an application to succeed, the petitioner must demonstrate a substantial change in circumstances since the earlier rejection.
The Court noted that the petitioner’s primary reliance was on the length of custody and the fact that the trial had not progressed to the stage of framing of charges. While acknowledging that a delay in trial is a relevant consideration, the Court held that it cannot be examined in isolation, particularly in cases involving serious economic offences governed by stringent statutory conditions.
“Merely on the ground of his prolonged incarceration, he cannot be held entitled to seek the benefit of bail in this petition, especially in the circumstance when his previous petition had been dismissed by passing a detailed order and that order stands upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court”, the Bench remarked.
Referring to the nature of allegations, the Court observed that the petitioner had been summoned for offences under the Companies Act involving fraud, which are treated as a distinct class requiring a stricter approach in matters of bail. The Court recalled the consistent view of the Supreme Court that economic offences involving deep-rooted conspiracies and large-scale financial loss must be viewed seriously.
The Court further examined the statutory framework under the Companies Act, noting that the twin conditions prescribed for the grant of bail in such cases require the Court to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
While recognising that in certain circumstances prolonged incarceration may justify dilution of such conditions, the Court held that the petitioner had failed to place any material demonstrating a change in factual or legal circumstances since the earlier rejection of bail. The Court specifically noted that the previous bail rejection had been upheld by the Supreme Court, thereby lending finality to the issue.
Conclusion
In view of the absence of any substantial change in circumstances since the earlier rejection of bail, the High Court held that no case was made out for the grant of regular bail in a successive application. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
However, recognising the long pendency of the proceedings, the Court directed the trial court to expedite the trial by making all possible efforts, including exploring the option of separating the trial of the accused whose presence had not yet been secured.
Cause Title: Rajeev Kumar Rana v. Serious Fraud Investigation Office (Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:177489)
Appearances
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Vinod Ghai, with Advocates Arnav Ghai, Advocate and Nitin Gupta
Respondent: Puneeta Sethi, Senior Panel Counsel, Y.S. Thakur, Advocate