2 held for O2 hoarding get bail, ‘punishment after conviction’

New Delhi: Two men arrested and jailed on charges of hoarding and black marketing of oxygen concentrators have been granted bail by a court, which observed that they had been in jail since April 28 and it would serve no purpose if they continued to be imprisoned.
“Further, there is a presumption of innocence in our criminal system...there is no other criminal involvement of present accused persons,” noted additional sessions judge Naveen Kumar Kashyap.
Ayush Handa and Himanshu Handa, through senior advocate Vikas Pahwa and advocate Sanya Kapur, had argued that the oxygen concentrators seized from them were meant for a hospital in Faridabad and it was a bona fide purchase.
Pahwa argued that except Section 420 (cheating) IPC, all other alleged offences were bailable. He further submitted that as there was no complainant or victim in the case, necessary elements such as wrongful loss was absent and, therefore, the charge of cheating couldn’t be invoked.
Claiming that it was a bona fide purchase for Sarvodaya Hospital, the counsel placed the related documents on record and argued that there was no complaint of selling the alleged articles to any public member.
The public prosecutor claimed the accused had taken undue benefit of the pandemic situation in a “well-planned” conspiracy and tried to sell oxygen concentrators and other related items at an inflated price. The prosecutor alleged that the accused had hoarded the Covid-19 resource equipment.
The accused were termed “influential persons” who could threaten witnesses and tamper with evidence. The investigation officer, however, informed the court that the provisions of Essential Commodity Act, invoked in the case, had been removed on the advice of senior officials.
The court observed, “The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventive. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after convictions, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.”
It was, therefore, underscored that it was necessary that the order didn’t suffer from non-application of mind and at the present stage a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case was not required to be undertaken. Noting that both “have roots in society”, the court granted them regular bail subject to furnishing of a Rs 50,000 personal bond each with one sound surety of like amount.
The case is now registered under IPC sections 420, 269 (negligent act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life), 188 (disobedience of order promulgated by a public servant), 34 (common intention), 120B (criminal conspiracy) and Section 3 of Epidemic Disease Act, 1897.