2018 (8) TMI 1912 - HC - Indian Laws

Grant of Bail - petitioner contends that the petitioner has been in custody for nearly ten months now since 29th September, 2017 and is no more required for investigation - professional misconduct - HELD THAT - It is evident that despite the fact that the original documents of the property, that is, Plot No. 752, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurugram, Haryana were mortgaged with the bank, the petitioner continued to represent that the documents were in his possession thereby induced him to part with the payment as noted above. For securing the loan on the strength of the original documents of the property in question the petitioner forged several documents - However, considering the fact that the petitioner has been in custody for the last ten months now and one of the co-accused is yet to be arrested, the evidence is primarily documentary in nature and the trial is likely to take some time, this Court deems it fit to grant bail to the petitioner. The petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of ₹1 lakh with one surety bond of the like amount subject to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court further subject to the condition that he will not leave the country without the prior permission of the Court concerned and in case of change of address will intimate the same to the Court concerned by way of an affidavit - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Bail application in a case involving charges under Sections 420/409/468/471/201/120-B IPC.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought bail in a case where he was accused under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner, a Chartered Accountant, had been in custody for almost ten months and was not required for further investigation. It was highlighted that the main accused was absconding, and the trial was expected to be prolonged. The petitioner's role was portrayed as being manipulated by the prime accused and another individual, with no direct involvement in any criminal activity. The defense emphasized the lack of complaints from the bank regarding fraud or cheating and the lawful means through which the loan was secured. It was argued that the petitioner had no reason to flee and should be granted bail.

The State, represented by the APP, contended that the petitioner was the mastermind behind the fraudulent activities. Allegations included opening fictitious accounts, preparing fake documents, and manipulating identities to secure loans. The prosecution claimed that the petitioner was the driving force behind the conspiracy, benefiting from substantial amounts routed through fictitious firms. Documents indicated the petitioner's control over the transactions and his active involvement in the fraudulent activities. The State argued against bail, presenting a strong case linking the petitioner to the criminal acts.

After hearing both sides, the Court considered the nature of the allegations, the evidence primarily being documentary, and the expected duration of the trial. Despite the serious charges and the involvement of other accused individuals, the Court decided to grant bail to the petitioner. The decision was based on the petitioner's prolonged custody, the likelihood of a lengthy trial, and the absence of one co-accused. Bail was granted on the condition of furnishing a personal bond and surety bond, along with restrictions on leaving the country and updating the court about any change of address. The petition was disposed of, and the order was to be issued immediately.