Hostility of witnesses no ground for bail in economic offences: HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that the hostility of complainant or prime prosecution witnesses cannot, by itself, be treated as a ground for bail especially in cases of economic offences. The Bench ruled such offences formed a distinct category of crime and “must be viewed with great seriousness.”

Refusing regular bail to a man accused of duping an investor of over Rs 2.14 lakh in an online financial fraud, the Bench asserted that economic offences caused significant financial and psychological distress and were required to be dealt with firmly.

Justice Sumeet Goel observed: “The gravity of the offence cannot be minimized as such frauds are increasingly rampant and cause significant financial as well as psychological distress to innocent victims. Furthermore, the economic offences, particularly those involving fraud and cheating constitute a distinct category of crime and must be viewed with great seriousness.”

The case pertained to allegations that the accused induced the complainant to transfer money on the pretext of investment with assured returns. The cheated amount came to Rs 2,14,759.58. Recovery was shown from him, and the nature of allegations prima facie pointed towards his complicity, the court observed.

Rejecting the argument that bail should follow because the complainant and his wife had turned hostile, Justice Goel held: “Indubitably, the mere circumstances of prime witnesses having turned hostile does not, ipso facto, result in their testimonies being effaced from the record or being discarded in toto. Their depositions are still a part of the evidentiary material and remain subject to scrutiny in light of other evidence that may be adduced by the prosecution.”

Justice Goel added that appreciation of such testimony vis-à-vis other prosecution evidence was the domain of the trial court.

“At the stage of bail, this Court cannot undertake an appreciation of evidence or presume acquittal merely because certain/material witnesses have resiled from their earlier statements.”

The Bench also took note of the fact that only three out of 18 prosecution witnesses had been examined so far, leaving open the possibility of the petitioner influencing or pressurizing the remaining witnesses, especially since some material witnesses had already turned hostile.

Justice Goel added the discretion to grant bail had to be exercised on well-settled parameters: “The grant of bail falls within the discretionary domain of the Court; however, such discretion must be exercised in a judicious and principled manner, ensuring it aligns with established legal precedents and the interests of justice. While considering a bail application, the Court must evaluate factors such as the existence of prima facie evidence implicating the accused, the nature and gravity of the alleged offence, and the severity of the likely sentence upon conviction.”

Dismissing the plea, the High Court concluded: “Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail at this stage. The instant petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.”