2019 (2) TMI 1978 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of bail - conspiracy - cheating poor investors - collection of huge deposits from the poor public of rural area alluring of high returns and also to provide them domestic animals like goat, sheep, pig etc. - company was not registered with RBI or SEBI for conducting such type of business/money transaction and investment of public money in their own business - offences punishable under sections 120-B, 420, 409 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 - HELD THAT - Law is well settled that detailed examination of evidence and elaborate discussion on merits of the case need not be undertaken for grant of bail. The Court has to indicate in the bail order, reasons for prima facie conclusion why bail was being granted, particularly, when the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Economic offences are considered grave offences as it affects the economy of the country as a whole and such offences having deep rooted conspiracy and involving huge loss of public fund are to be viewed seriously. Economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design solely with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the community. In such type of offences, while granting bail, the Court has to keep in mind, inter alia, the larger interest of public and State. The nature and seriousness of an economic offence and its impact on the society are always important considerations in such a case and those aspects must squarely be dealt with by the Court while passing an order on bail applications. Taking into account the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record against the petitioner relating to the commission of the offences under which charge sheet has been submitted, the nature and gravity of the accusation, the nature of supporting evidence, the severity of punishment in case of conviction, the manner in which huge amount of money was collected in contravention of the provisions of SEBI Act and CIS Regulations and the innocent poor persons were cheated of their hard earned money on the basis of the false assurance, it would not be proper to release the petitioner on bail. Bail application dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.
2. Allegations of criminal conspiracy, cheating, and misappropriation under IPC and the 1978 Act.
3. Involvement in Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes.
4. Role and actions of the petitioner.
5. Parity in bail consideration.
6. Proviso to Section 437(1) of Cr.P.C. for women.
7. Judicial discretion in granting bail for economic offences.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Bail Application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.:
The petitioner sought bail in connection with S.P.E. Case No.29 of 2014, pending before the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (C.B.I.), Bhubaneswar. The application was filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. Allegations of Criminal Conspiracy, Cheating, and Misappropriation under IPC and the 1978 Act:
The petitioner was accused of offenses under Sections 120-B, 420, and 409 of the IPC and Sections 4, 5, and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978. The allegations included entering into a criminal conspiracy to collect deposits from the public under false pretenses and misappropriating the funds.

3. Involvement in Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes:
The company, Samruddha Jeevan Foods India Ltd., was involved in illegal financial activities, collecting deposits from the public under the guise of livestock business without proper registration from RBI or SEBI. The company mobilized approximately ?1116.12 crores from 47.76 lakh depositors between 2008 and 2014.

4. Role and Actions of the Petitioner:
The petitioner was a Promoter Director of the company and held a significant stake. Substantial amounts were diverted to her bank accounts from the company's accounts. The investigation revealed that she misappropriated ?16,35,67,964/- from the company’s funds, which were collected from the public.

5. Parity in Bail Consideration:
The petitioner’s counsel argued for bail on the ground of parity, citing the release of her husband, the Managing Director, by the Supreme Court. However, the court noted that the period of detention for the petitioner was much lesser than that of her husband, and parity alone cannot be the sole ground for bail.

6. Proviso to Section 437(1) of Cr.P.C. for Women:
The court acknowledged the proviso to Section 437(1) of Cr.P.C., which allows for the release of women on bail even if they are accused of serious offenses. However, it emphasized that this provision is enabling and not mandatory. The nature and gravity of the offense, the potential impact on society, and the likelihood of the accused tampering with evidence were considered.

7. Judicial Discretion in Granting Bail for Economic Offences:
The court referred to several Supreme Court judgments, highlighting that economic offenses require a different approach due to their severe impact on society and the economy. Factors such as the nature of the accusation, severity of punishment, and the potential for tampering with evidence must be considered. The court concluded that the petitioner’s involvement in a serious economic offense, the ongoing investigation, and the substantial public interest warranted the rejection of the bail application.

Conclusion:
The bail application was rejected considering the gravity of the accusations, the petitioner’s significant role in the company, the large amount of public money involved, and the ongoing investigation. The court emphasized the need to protect public interest and the integrity of the judicial process in cases of serious economic offenses.