Can an accused be granted bail as a rule—rather than kept in jail as an exception—when co-accused have secured bail, a charge-sheet is filed, and there is no risk of tampering or absconding?

Summary

Category	Data
Case Name	BA2/170/2025 of KULDEEP NANDRAJOG Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
CNR	UKHC010095202025
Decision Date	25-08-2025
Disposal Nature	ALLOWED
Judgment Author	Hon’ble Mr. Justice Alok Kumar Verma
Court	High Court of Uttarakhand
Bench	Single Judge Bench
Precedent Value	Affirmation of existing precedent
Overrules / Affirms	Affirms
Type of Law	Criminal Law
Questions of Law	Whether, in an economic-offence prosecution where co-accused have been granted bail and the charge-sheet is already filed, bail must be denied despite absence of tampering risk?
Ratio Decidendi	The Court reiterated that bail is the rule and committal to jail is the exception under Article 21 of the Constitution. Refusal of bail restricts personal liberty and is justified only to secure attendance of the accused. Where the charge-sheet has been filed, co-accused have obtained bail, and there is no likelihood of tampering or absconding, the accused is entitled to bail even before trial.
Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon	The Court relied on the general principle that bail is the norm and detention during trial is not punishment but a means to ensure attendance; absence of specific risk warrants bail.
Facts as Summarised by the Court	FIR dated 18-04-2024 alleges that the informant invested Rs. 10,68,300 with Octagon Builders & Promoters Pvt. Ltd. for a plot; possession was not delivered; applicant was a director of that company.
Citations	2025:UHC:7492

Category	Impact
Binding On	All subordinate courts in Uttarakhand
Persuasive For	Other High Courts

Reaffirms that under Article 21, bail is the rule and committal to jail is the exception.
Holds that grant of bail to co-accused and filing of the charge-sheet weigh in favour of bail, absent risk of tampering or absconding.

Bail is the rule and committal to jail the exception; refusal restricts personal liberty under Article 21.
The purpose of pre-trial detention is to secure the accused’s attendance, not to punish.
Co-accused had been granted bail, and the charge-sheet was on record—therefore, no justification to deny bail for tampering or absconding.
In absence of such risks, the applicant deserves bail without prejudice to the merits of the case.

Alleged false implication; actual sale handled by co-director Vibhu Vishwabandhu.
Applicant did not receive any amount from the informant; company is under liquidation; related matter pending in Delhi High Court.
Co-accused granted bail by Sessions Judge; applicant is a local resident; no risk of absconding or evidence tampering; charge-sheet filed.

On 18 April 2024, FIR was registered under Sections 420, 120B & 427 IPC, alleging that the informant paid Rs. 10,68,300 to Octagon Builders & Promoters Pvt. Ltd. for a plot that was never delivered.
The applicant was a director of the company; the co-director handled the transaction.
The first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn on 17 June 2025 with liberty to file afresh.
In the second bail application, the applicant sought release on bail pending trial.

Sections 420 (cheating), 120B (criminal conspiracy), and 427 (mischief) of the IPC were invoked.
The Court discussed inherent jurisdiction under Article 21 of the Constitution, emphasizing that personal liberty cannot be unduly restricted.
No novel statutory interpretation or reading-down was applied beyond reaffirming settled bail principles.

✔ Precedent Followed – The decision reaffirms established law that bail is the rule and jail the exception under Article 21.