The Panchkula Sessions Court, Haryana has granted regular bail to an accused in an alleged vaccine supply fraud case, reiterating that mere criminal antecedents cannot, by themselves, constitute a ground for rejecting a bail application. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. (2012) 2 SCC 382 , the Court observed that while deciding bail, the focus must be on the accused’s role in the case at hand and other relevant considerations, rather than solely on past criminal cases.
The prosecution alleged that the accused was part of a conspiracy in which vaccines were procured through fraudulent purchase orders and dishonoured cheques. It contended that he was the mastermind behind the transactions, remained in constant touch with co-accused persons, and was involved in other criminal cases, arguing that his release could hamper the ongoing investigation and influence witnesses.
The defence, however, submitted that the accused was not named in the FIR, had been in judicial custody for over two months, no further custodial interrogation or recovery was required, and that the offences were triable by a Magistrate. It was also argued that the trial was likely to take considerable time to conclude.
Allowing the bail application, the Court observed that no useful purpose would be served by continued incarceration, particularly when no further recovery remained to be effected and the trial would take time. Reaffirming the settled principle that “bail is the rule and jail is an exception,” the Court ordered the accused’s release on bail subject to conditions, including furnishing bail bonds, appearing before the trial court, refraining from influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence, and not leaving the country without prior permission.