The Court said that Chandrashekhar, having been in jail for over 7 years, had suffered more than the maximum sentence that would have been imposed on him had he been convicted.
The Bombay High Court on Thursday granted bail to alleged conman Sukesh Chadrashekhar in a cheating case registered against him in 2015. [Shekhar Chandrashekhar V. State of Maharashtra]
Justice Manish Pitale said that Chandrashekhar, having been in jail for over 7 years, had suffered more than the maximum sentence that would have been imposed on him had he been convicted.
"...the total period of incarceration suffered by the applicant is about seven years and ten months. It is certainly more than the maximum period of sentence that can be imposed upon the applicant, even if he is convicted for the offences registered under the subject FIR," the order stated.
The Court went on to explain that an accused person is bound to be released on bail when he has suffered more than half the period of maximum sentence imposed upon him.
It was the prosecution's case that Chandrashekhar and his alleged girlfriend had floated a bogus company which launched various investment schemes. The duo allegedly amassed ₹19 crore through the Ponzi scheme.
After his arrest in May 2015, Chandrashekhar approached the Bombay High Court for bail, which rejected the same. He then moved the Supreme Court, which granted him bail on certain conditions, and ordered his release in September 2016. However, since he failed to meet the conditions, the apex court cancelled his bail, as a result of which he was arrested again in April 2017.
In 2020, the designated court under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 [MPID Act] refused to grant him bail, prompting the present appeal before the High Court.
The High Court rejected the State's stance that the second period of incarceration (from April 4, 2017 to the present date) suffered by Chandrashekhar was not related to the present case.
"The stand taken on behalf of the respondent State that the second period of incarceration cannot be relatable to the present case is a hypertechnical approach, which has to be rejected at the outset. The record shows that upon cancellation of bail, the applicant was arrested on 16.04.2017 in connection with the case registered at Delhi. Hence, he was in custody from 16.04.2017 onwards," the Court said.
Thus, the Court allowed the bail application and ordered his release.
Advocates Vikram Sutaria, Sharvari Joshi and Agastya Desai appeared for Chandrashekhar while Assistant Public Prosecutor Mayur S Sonavane represented the State.