2021 (12) TMI 1382 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of Regular Bail - siphoning of funds - benami properties - purchase of land in the name of their employees and agents who are not actual beneficiaries - HELD THAT - It is an admitted fact that none of the petitioners herein have been nominated as an accused either by CBI or ED which agencies are also looking into the scam that has taken place at the behest of Chairman/Directors of the Company - It is also admitted fact that as on date petitioners are in custody and the matter has already been investigated and the challan stands presented in a magisterial trial and therefore question of interfering in the investigation by the petitioners would not arise. As far as the question of influencing the witnesses is concerned it would be worthwhile to note that they would be official witnesses who would be giving their testimony on the basis of documents already in their possession and therefore possibility of influencing them is far off. The apprehension raised by counsel appearing for the complainant that the land standing in the name of various persons (benami holders) is being sold would be protected by the order passed by the Hon ble Supreme Court on 25.07.2016 wherein there is a restraint order of any sale transfer alienation or even creation of third party interest on the land in any manner whatsoever and therefore it would be open to the complainant to point out any such sale transfer or alienation taking place to the investigating officer of current FIR. The petitioners are directed to be released on regular bail on execution of personal bonds of 50, 000/- and a surety of like amount in each case by each petitioner to the satisfaction of concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Grant of regular bail to petitioners in custody under FIR No.79 dated 16.07.2020 involving Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B IPC at Police Station City Zira, Firozepur.

Analysis:

1. Allegations and Background:
The case involves a company that misled investors by promising land investments but diverted funds. Directors misused funds, bought land in employees' names, and duped investors. CBI and Enforcement Directorate investigated, leading to the registration of FIR No.79. Some arrested individuals, including petitioners, sought regular bail.

2. Petitioner's Arguments:
Petitioners, such as drivers and agents, argued they weren't direct beneficiaries. They highlighted the ongoing investigation, lack of influence on official witnesses, and cited the Supreme Court's judgment on bail duration in economic offenses.

3. State's Response:
The State justified the FIR based on investor complaints and the need to identify benami properties. The complainant opposed bail, emphasizing the ongoing investigations and the impact on small investors.

4. Court's Findings and Decision:
The Court detailed each petitioner's alleged role, including land transactions and ownership transfers. Despite objections, the Court granted bail based on specific reasons:
- Petitioners were not accused by CBI or ED.
- Investigation was complete, and challan presented in a magisterial trial.
- Official witnesses' testimonies were document-based, reducing the risk of influence.
- Referenced the Supreme Court's stance on bail in economic offenses.
The Court imposed conditions, including a ban on land sales listed in revenue records.

5. Safeguards and Precautions:
To address concerns about land sales, the Court referred to Supreme Court orders restraining property transactions. It directed complainants to report any suspicious activities to investigating officers. Additionally, SEBI was tasked with overseeing land sales to protect investors' interests.

6. Conclusion:
All petitions were allowed, granting regular bail to petitioners upon fulfilling specified requirements. The Court clarified that its decision did not reflect on the case's merits, maintaining neutrality.