2012 (7) TMI 1101 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Grant of bail u/s 439 of Cr.P.C.
2. Compliance with interim bail conditions.
3. Gravity and implications of the offence.
4. Comparison with other bail judgments.
5. Tampering with evidence and fleeing from law.

Summary:

1. Grant of Bail u/s 439 of Cr.P.C.:
The petitioner filed a bail application u/s 439 of Cr.P.C. after repeated rejections by lower courts. The High Court initially granted interim bail on 27.1.2012, requiring the petitioner to furnish a Personal Bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties and to dispose of his property in Gurgaon via public auction.

2. Compliance with Interim Bail Conditions:
The petitioner failed to comply with the interim bail conditions. Despite being directed to advertise the sale of his property in widely circulated newspapers, he only advertised in 'Business Standard', which has limited circulation. He also did not procure a firm offer for the property sale.

3. Gravity and Implications of the Offence:
The petitioner and his co-accused father allegedly cheated around 1500 investors of approximately Rs. 30 crores by promising lucrative returns. The court noted that this act showed a deliberate and sophisticated scheme to defraud the public, which warranted serious consideration against granting bail.

4. Comparison with Other Bail Judgments:
The petitioner cited the cases of Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI and Suresh Kalmadi Vs. CBI to argue for bail. However, the court distinguished these cases, noting that they involved public exchequer losses rather than direct public fraud. The court emphasized that granting bail in such cases would send a wrong signal and encourage similar fraudulent activities.

5. Tampering with Evidence and Fleeing from Law:
While the court did not delve deeply into the potential for tampering with evidence or fleeing, it highlighted the petitioner's lack of bona fides and misleading actions as significant factors against granting bail.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the gravity and implications of the offence dissuaded it from extending bail. The petitioner was directed to surrender before the learned ACMM, New Delhi. The court allowed the petitioner to file a new bail application after the examination of material witnesses.