2016 (9) TMI 1477 - HC - Indian Laws

Bail Application - Saradha Scam - money of investors belonging to the lower strata of society has been utilised by unscrupulous persons for their personal gain - Held that - There is no doubt that the proviso to Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which stipulates that certain categories of persons should be released on bail can also be read into the provisions of Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However this is not a case where we would exercise our discretion by granting bail to the petitioner only because she is a woman. The reasons for the same are not far to be seen. There is no doubt that the petitioner has been able to wield a considerable influence and ensure that she continues to be hospitalized till today. She has been interrogated in hospital on 29th December 2015 and 20th June 2016. However she has been successful in avoiding being incarcerated in a correctional home. The investigations which are in progress could be hampered by the petitioner who prima facie appears to be manipulative as reflected from certain emails written by her to the prime accused and to a person who was to be the sole arbitrator under the agreement of June 2010 in the event there was any dispute with regard to the agreement - Under these circumstances prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. The Magistrate concerned is directed to ensure that the petitioner does not continue in various hospitals endlessly at her own whims and fancies.

Summary

Issues:
Investigation of Ponzi scheme by C.B.I, Bail application of the petitioner, Application of proviso to Section 437 of Cr.P.C for bail of a woman accused, Consideration of personal liberty vs. justice for duped investors, Alleged conspiracy and ongoing investigation, Influence of the petitioner on hospitalization, Rejection of bail application.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a case related to the Saradha Scam, where the petitioner was arrested following the Supreme Court's directive to C.B.I to investigate the Ponzi scheme. The petitioner, a woman, sought bail on various grounds, including cooperation with the investigating agency, lack of incriminating evidence, and health issues leading to prolonged hospitalization. The C.B.I argued against bail, alleging a conspiracy between the petitioner and the prime accused in channeling money from investors. The court examined the agreement between the petitioner and the prime accused, emails exchanged, and prima facie found the petitioner involved as a conspirator, denying bail based on these findings.

Regarding the application of the proviso to Section 437 of the Cr.P.C for bail of a woman accused, the court rejected the petitioner's argument that gender should be a sole consideration for bail. The court emphasized the need to balance personal liberty with justice for duped investors in economic offenses. Highlighting ongoing investigations and the potential for the petitioner to interfere, the court concluded that bail should be denied to prevent hampering the investigation and considering the magnitude of the offense involving misappropriated public funds.

The judgment also addressed the petitioner's influence on hospitalization, expressing surprise at the prolonged period spent in various hospitals and the petitioner's ability to avoid being incarcerated. The court noted the ongoing investigation into the alleged conspiracy in the State of Assam and the risk of hampering the investigation due to the petitioner's manipulative behavior, as evidenced by certain emails. Consequently, the bail application of the petitioner was rejected, and the Magistrate was directed to ensure that the petitioner does not continue in hospitals indefinitely at her discretion.