2015 (3) TMI 1402 - HC - Indian Laws

Grant of Regular Bail - conspiracy - floating of bogus companies by appointing several persons as the Directors - offence punishable under Section 120-B, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 477-A of the Indian Penal Code - HELD THAT - Indisputably, the case on hand is one of criminal conspiracy. Prima facie it appears that as a part of the conspiracy, which was hatched, a huge amount was transferred to Dubai and Hongkong on the strength of fake Bills of Entry. Each of the accused has played his own role in the alleged conspiracy. It appears that one of the main accused persons Sunil Dipak Kumar Agrawal has been ordered to be released on regular bail. The applicant-accused is ordered to be released on bail registered with the DCB Police Station, Surat on executing a personal bond of ₹ 5,00,000/- with one surety of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the trial Court, and subject to the conditions imposed - application allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. Application for regular bail.
2. Criminal conspiracy and economic offence.
3. Role of co-accused and parity in bail.
4. Seriousness of the offence and judicial discretion in granting bail.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Application for Regular Bail:
The applicant, an accused in connection with C.R. No.I-16 of 2014 registered with DCB Police Station, Surat, sought regular bail. The offences involved were under Sections 120-B, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant was arrested on 20th August 2014, and the charge-sheet was filed on 15th November 2014. The Sessions Court at Surat had previously rejected the bail application on 24th December 2014.

2. Criminal Conspiracy and Economic Offence:
The prosecution alleged that the applicant and co-accused hatched a conspiracy to float bogus companies and produce forged Bills of Entry to remit a substantial amount of Rs. 104,60,99,082/- to Dubai and Hong Kong. The conspiracy was allegedly planned in the office of a co-accused, Madanlal Jain. The applicant was accused of receiving a significant amount of money, which was credited to his and his brother's accounts.

3. Role of Co-Accused and Parity in Bail:
The applicant's counsel argued that other co-accused, including Sunil Agrawal, Ratan Agrawal, and Bilal Haroon Gilani, who played significant roles, were released on bail. The counsel emphasized that the applicant's role was on par with or less severe than these co-accused. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the bail, highlighting the serious nature of the economic offence and ongoing prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

4. Seriousness of the Offence and Judicial Discretion in Granting Bail:
The Court acknowledged the serious nature of the alleged offence but noted that the investigation was complete, and the charge-sheet was filed. The Court referred to precedents, such as the Supreme Court's observations in Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI, emphasizing that bail is the rule and jail is the exception. The Court considered the fact that the trial would take a considerable time and that the applicant had already spent a significant period in custody.

Conclusion:
The Court decided to grant bail to the applicant, noting that the co-accused had been released on bail and the investigation was complete. The applicant was ordered to be released on bail upon executing a personal bond of Rs. 5,00,000/- with one surety of the like amount, subject to conditions including not leaving the state without permission, marking presence at the police station every Monday, and not taking undue advantage of liberty. The Court emphasized that the trial court should not be influenced by the observations made during the bail proceedings. The application for bail was allowed, and the rule was made absolute to the specified extent.

← Previous Next →