"Did not know full extent of conspiracy": Delhi HC grants bail to bank official accused of forging documents, fake stamps

The Delhi High Court, on Thursday, emphasized on the right of a speedy trial of an accused. The bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani outlined, “It is crucial for a court to recognise and be conscious of the right of an accused to speedy trial; and to prevent that right from being defeated, rather than wake-up much too late and lament that such right has been defeated”.

The court in this case addressed a critical constitutional concern regarding prolonged undertrial custody and the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The judgment was delivered in a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by one Amit Agarwal, who was an accused under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The case stemmed from an alleged criminal conspiracy involving former and current officials of the Customs Department and a senior bank manager at Punjab National Bank. The accused were alleged to have forged official documents such as refund scrolls and cheques using fake stamps and signatures to fraudulently divert unclaimed funds from the Customs Department into fictitious accounts.

The petitioner, Amit Agarwal, was alleged to have facilitated the movement of these funds but was not accused of committing any forgery or directly cheating the government. Senior Advocate Tanveer Ahmed Mir, for the petitioner, argued that the petitioner merely acted as a conduit under the direction of the main conspirator, Jayanta Ghosh, and had no knowledge of the nature of the transactions. It was submitted that the petitioner believed the funds were related to tax-saving operations and that a significant portion of the money was eventually routed back to Ghosh and his associates.

It was also contended that the petitioner had already undergone more than 13 months of judicial custody, although the maximum punishment for the alleged offences was only up to seven years. The prosecution had filed a chargesheet on 12 January 2024, citing 49 witnesses and around 10,000 pages of documents. However, charges were yet to be framed, and the trial had not commenced.

Senior Advocate Tanveer Ahmed Mir emphasised that prolonged pre-trial detention without conviction amounted to a violation of the right to personal liberty. It was pointed out that three co-accused individuals had already been granted regular bail, and the petitioner had complied with all conditions during three prior instances of interim bail.

The State, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Tarang Srivastva, opposed the bail application, arguing that the petitioner played a key role in a serious economic offence involving public funds and posed a threat to the ongoing investigation. APP Srivastva expressed concerns that the petitioner might tamper with evidence or influence witnesses. It also distinguished the petitioner’s role from that of the co-accused who had received bail, claiming that Agarwal had a more central involvement as a hawala operator.

After considering the facts and legal submissions, the court observed that the petitioner’s role appeared limited to facilitating fund transfers, and there was no evidence to suggest he forged any documents or was aware of the conspiracy’s full extent.

The court acknowledged the importance of the concept of presumption of innocence, emphasizing that, “It would therefore be sacrilege for a court to disregard the presumption of innocence which enures to the benefit of an accused, while on the other hand failing to ensure speedy trial. The right to speedy trial is the flip-side of the presumption of innocence”.

Furthermore, the court acknowledged that despite the serious allegations, the petitioner remained an undertrial and had not been proven guilty. The court highlighted that, “bail must not be denied as a mark of disapproval of the alleged conduct of an accused; nor should it be denied for giving to an accused the taste of imprisonment as a lesson”.

The court reiterated that pre-trial detention should not be punitive and must be justified by necessity, such as preventing witness tampering or ensuring the accused’s presence at trial.

“Bail may be denied if the court is not satisfied that an accused would remain available to face trial; or the court is of the view that he would intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence or otherwise interfere in the course of justice. The ‘operative’ test that a court must apply for grant or denial of bail is the test of ‘necessity’, namely to answer why it is necessary to detain an undertrial in custody”, the court emphasized.

Quoting the Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of Mohd. Muslim v State, the court noted the psychological and social consequences of prolonged incarceration and the phenomenon of “prisonisation”, especially for economically weaker individuals. It stressed that an accused must not suffer imprisonment merely due to the delay in trial.

Accordingly, balancing the nature of allegations, the duration of custody, and the stage of the trial, the court granted regular bail to the petitioner, subject to appropriate conditions.

Case Title: Amit Agrawal v State (2025:DHC:3108)