1987 (1) TMI 502 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Bail application under fresh circumstances.
2. Charges framed against the petitioner.
3. Allegations and evidence against the petitioner.
4. Previous bail refusals and new developments.
5. Petitioner's involvement in other legal cases.
6. Petitioner's financial and business involvement.
7. Apprehensions of fleeing from justice.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Bail Application under Fresh Circumstances:
The petitioner, previously denied bail multiple times, sought reconsideration of his bail application due to new circumstances and developments. The court acknowledged that fresh bail applications can be considered if new materials, further developments, and different considerations are presented. The Supreme Court's precedent in Bahu Singh v. State of U.P. supported this view, stating that an order refusing bail does not preclude another application on a later occasion with new materials.

2. Charges Framed Against the Petitioner:
The petitioner, along with a co-accused, was initially charged under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. However, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate declined to charge them under Sections 467, 468, and 471, framing charges only under Section 420 read with Section 120-B. Both the accused and the state filed revision petitions against this order.

3. Allegations and Evidence Against the Petitioner:
The petitioner, as Chairman of Esal Group of Companies, and his co-accused, a General Manager at Punjab National Bank's London Branch, were accused of conspiring to defraud the bank using false and forged bills of exchange and shipping documents. The alleged fraud involved submitting forged bills purporting to show shipments of sugar, resulting in a financial loss of approximately $7.649 million to the bank. The investigation revealed that the supporting documents were forged and the vessel mentioned was not engaged in the shipment.

4. Previous Bail Refusals and New Developments:
The court had previously refused bail due to the gravity of the allegations and the apprehension that the petitioner might flee from justice. However, the petitioner presented several new considerations:
- No trial had commenced or was likely to commence soon.
- The petitioner had been granted bail in another case (Sobhraj Jail-break case), where no legally admissible evidence was found against him.
- The Calcutta High Court had recognized the petitioner's entitlement to bail under Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. but refused it due to his involvement in other cases in Delhi.
- The petitioner had procured a fake passport, but it was argued that he could have left India using his valid passport as no case was pending against him at that time.
- The petitioner was negotiating with the Indian government to resolve his financial issues, indicating he would not flee from justice.

5. Petitioner's Involvement in Other Legal Cases:
The petitioner's involvement in other legal cases, such as the Sobhraj Jail-break case and a case in Calcutta under Sections 419, 420, 468, and 471 IPC and Section 12(1)(b) of the Passport Act, influenced previous bail refusals. However, new developments in these cases, including the grant of bail and the recognition of entitlement to bail, were presented as fresh considerations.

6. Petitioner's Financial and Business Involvement:
The petitioner had significant financial and business involvement, including owning 74% shares in Jokai India Ltd., one of the largest tea companies. It was argued that his continued detention would hinder his ability to resolve financial issues and that his assets far exceeded his liabilities, making it unlikely he would flee from justice.

7. Apprehensions of Fleeing from Justice:
The court considered the state's apprehension that the petitioner might flee from justice. However, it was argued that the petitioner had substantial assets in India, was negotiating with the government to resolve financial issues, and had been a credible client of the bank. The court found that the apprehension was not reasonable and real, and the petitioner's continued detention was unjust.

Conclusion:
The court directed that the petitioner be admitted to bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10 lakhs with two sureties in similar amounts. The petitioner was required to surrender his passport, report to the investigating officer every Saturday, and not leave India without court permission. The court emphasized the importance of balancing personal liberty with legal considerations and ensuring a fair trial.