2022 (3) TMI 1458 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of bail - conspiracy - sham agreement entered into with an intention to defraud and cheat Yes Bank Ltd - Bail Application has been dismissed mainly on the ground that the Applicant is involved in committing economic offence and the fact that he has repaid the outstanding amount, is not sufficient to wipe out the criminal liability - HELD THAT - In the instant case, the FIR was registered on 12/03/2020. The Applicant has reported to the Investigating Officer as and when called and co-operated throughout in the Investigation. Upon completion of the investigation, charge sheet has been filed on 08/10/2021. The Investigating Officer did not find it necessary to arrest the accused during the course of investigation. Hence, in terms of the clarification given by the Hon ble Supreme Court, it is not necessary to detain the Applicant in custody pending trial, particularly considering the fact that the trial is not likely to conclude in near future, in view of large pendency of cases. The Applicant who is facing trial in Special Case No.101233 of 2021 pending on the file of Special Judge (CBI), Greater Bombay, is ordered to be released on bail on furnishing PR bond in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- with one or two solvent sureties in the like amount - Application allowed.

Summary

Issues: Bail application under section 439 of Cr.P.C.

Analysis:
1. Allegations and Charges: The applicant is facing trial for offenses under sections 120(B) and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 12 r/w. Section 11 r/w. Section 13(2) r/w. Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The charges involve a criminal conspiracy to divert sale proceeds of mortgaged property, cheat a bank, and obtain illegal gratification through various fraudulent means.

2. Bail Application Dismissal: The applicant's bail application was initially dismissed on the grounds of being involved in an economic offense, despite repaying the outstanding amount, which was deemed insufficient to absolve criminal liability.

3. Legal Precedents: The applicant's counsel cited legal precedents, including the decision in Satender Kumar Antil v/s. CBI, to support the bail application. The Supreme Court's guidelines for bail after the filing of a charge sheet in economic offenses not covered by special acts were highlighted.

4. Supreme Court Clarifications: The Apex Court clarified that the mere filing of a charge sheet does not automatically warrant the arrest of the accused if there was no cause to arrest during the investigation. This aspect was reinforced by a specific case reference.

5. Investigation and Cooperation: The applicant cooperated with the investigating authorities, reported when called, and was not deemed necessary for arrest during the investigation. The court considered the large pendency of cases and the unlikelihood of a speedy trial conclusion.

6. Grant of Bail: Considering the circumstances, cooperation during investigation, and legal clarifications, the court granted bail to the applicant. The bail was subject to specific terms and conditions, including a personal recognizance bond, regular reporting to the investigating agency, non-interference with witnesses or evidence, and other trial-related obligations.

7. Bail Conditions: The conditions for bail included regular reporting, non-interference with the case, cooperation with trial proceedings, updating contact information, and seeking court permission before leaving the country.

8. Disposition: The bail application was allowed, and the court issued specific terms and conditions for the applicant's release on bail, ensuring compliance with legal requirements and trial-related obligations.