Economic offences corrode fabric of democracy: Delhi HC rejects plea challenging exclusion of economic offenders release to decongest jails

The Delhi High Court today refused to grant any relief to Religare promoter, Malvinder Singh, in his petition challenging the exclusion of undertrials facing trial for economic offences for purposes of securing interim bail/parole on account of COVID-19. (Malvinder Mohan Singh vs State)."..economic offences are offences which corrode the fabric of democracy and are committed with total disregard to the rights and interest of the nation and are committed by breach of trust and faith and are against the national economy and national interest and that (their exclusion) cannot be termed to be an arbitrary exercise of discretion.."Delhi High Court said. .The judgment was passed by a Single Judge Bench of Justice Anu Malhotra. .Malvinder Singh, who is presently in judicial custody in connection the Religare Finvest misappropriation case, had preferred the petition for a direction to quash the March 28 bifurcation of undertrials by the High-Powered Committee for releasing them on interim bail or parole to de-congest jails. .Coronavirus: Criteria for release of undertrial prisoners on interim bail relaxed to decongest Delhi Jails.Religare Finvest misappropriation case is being investigated by the Enforcement Directorate as well as Delhi Police. .Malvinder Singh contended that the exclusion of undertrials facing investigation by the Enforcement Directorate etc from the purview of grant of interim bail/parole was arbitrary, unjust, unfair and not based on any intelligible differentia. .Asserting that the objective behind constituting such High-Powered Committees was to decongest the jails amid COVID-19, counsel for Malvinder Singh argued that leaving behind inmates who allegedly committed economic offences was wholly unconstitutional and in violation of Articles 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India. .It was inter alia stated that the triple test was the only criterion for grant of bail in a case and there could be no fetters on Sections 437/438/439 CrPC with respect to any offence or class of offences. .Delhi Police and Enforcement Directorate opposed the petition. .Delhi Police argued that economic offences were the gravest offences against the society at large and were thus, necessarily required to be treated differently in the matter of bail. .It was pointed out that the discretion to grant bail in non-bailable offences remained with the Court and the option of applying for regular bail was still available to the Malvinder Singh. .The Court noted that it was clear from the bare perusal of the minutes of the High Powered Committee meetings that no category of prisoners could seek or claim to be released from prison as a matter of right on account of the recommendation. ."The Committee has further observed to the effect that ..the criteria was adopted taking into consideration class/category of offences in mind and not having prisoner-centric approach and that the object was only to release some of the prisoners and not all the prisoners on a reasonable classification arrived at on the basis of the orders passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court, intending to implement the same in letter and spirit.", the Court added. .Significantly, the High-Powered Committee had made it clear that the guidelines and minutes of the Committee for release of excluded prisoners would not affect their right to be relased on regular/interim bail under CrPC, the Court observed. .(High- Powered Committee recommendations) do not preclude and do not prevent the applicant/petitioner who is alleged to have committed such an offence as investigated by the CBI/ED/NIA /Special Cell of Delhi Police to move an application seeking the grant of bail in accordance with law which the Court concerned could consider on merits in accordance with law.Delhi High Court.In view of the above, the Court concluded that Malvinder Singh's contention that the exclusion of economic offenders stifled the right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India was wholly untenable..The prayer to quash the bifurcation of prisoners was accordingly rejected..Senior Advocate Kailash Vasdev with Advocates Neoma Vasdev, Abhinav Mukerji appeared for Malvinder Singh..Delhi Police was represented by Standing Counsel (Crl) Rahul Mehra with Advocates Chaitanya Gosain, Divyank Tyagi. .ED was represented by Standing Counsel Amit Mahajan with Advocate Mallika Hiremath. .Advocates Surbhi Sharma, Aishwarya Singh appeared for Religare Finvest. .Read the Judgment: