2015 (12) TMI 1859 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of Bail - dishonest misappropriation of deposits of the gullible investors - there would be around 1600 complainants/victims all of whom have been cited as witnesses and they were duped of approximately 20 crores - offence under Sections 420/120B IPC - HELD THAT - Though nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction as well as reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses or apprehension of threat to the complainant are some of the important considerations while granting or refusing bail but in the case in hand one cannot forget that chargesheet has already been submitted. Even after framing of charges not a single witness has been examined. The sheer magnitude of the economic deprivation of investors makes it very obvious that at the trial there will be number of witnesses to support the prosecution version. A trial in a case of this kind cannot take place in a hurried manner. Any haste shown by the Trial Court in such matters would only occasion failure of justice. This Court is conscious of the fact that for an offence under Section 409 IPC the maximum punishment is imprisonment for life but at the same time one cannot lose sight of the fact that the investigating agency has already completed investigation and the trial has not begun. In the opinion of this Court despite the gravity of the offence and the magnitude of the losses suffered by the investors/victims the petitioner has become entitled to bail - the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a bond in the sum of 25, 000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court and other conditions imposed - application allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Bail application in connection with FIR involving charges under Sections 409/406/420/467/471/120B IPC - Delay in trial commencement - Magnitude of economic deprivation and number of witnesses - Nature of accusation and severity of punishment - Precedent in Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI, 2012 (1) SCC 40.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought bail in connection with FIR No.270/2010 (P.S.Ambedkar Nagar) with charges under Sections 409/406/420/467/471/120B IPC. The complainant alleged being deceived by the petitioner's NGO, resulting in an investment loss. Despite charges being framed, no witness had been examined at the trial, and the petitioner had been in custody since 2010. The prosecution highlighted the misappropriation of funds, with around 1600 victims duped of approximately Rs. 20 crores and 8500 complaints received against the NGO, amounting to Rs. 80 crores. The court considered the severity of the offence, the ongoing investigation, and the delay in trial commencement, emphasizing the importance of ensuring a fair trial without haste.

In the case of Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI, the Supreme Court emphasized that bail aims to secure the accused's trial appearance, not as a punitive measure. The court noted the seriousness of the offence and the potential delay in concluding the trial, leading to the petitioner being granted bail. Despite the gravity of the offence and the losses suffered by victims, the court deemed the petitioner entitled to bail due to the delay in trial commencement and the need for a fair trial process. The bail was granted on specific conditions to ensure the petitioner's compliance and cooperation with the investigation and trial proceedings.

The conditions of bail included restrictions on influencing witnesses, mandatory court appearances, surrendering the passport, assisting in other FIR investigations, providing contact details, and staying within Delhi limits without prior approval. Any violation of these conditions would allow the investigating agency to seek bail cancellation. The court disposed of the application with these conditions, highlighting the importance of ensuring the petitioner's presence and cooperation throughout the legal proceedings.