2017 (2) TMI 287 - SC - Companies Law

Grant of bail - detention in custody of under-trial prisoners - Chit Fund Scam involving the Saradha Group of Companies - Held that - Having regard to the materials available, we are of the opinion, mainly in the face of the disclosures in the latest status report, that presently further confinement of the appellant in judicial custody is not an indispensable necessity for the unhindered investigation, that is in progress. In the above view of the matter, the appeal is allowed and the appellant is ordered to be released on bail in FIR RC-04/S/2014-(SIT) Kolkata of ₹ 1 (One) crore and on furnishing two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Alipore, Kolkata, West Bengal and also subject to the following conditions 1) The appellant would surrender her passport to the Trial Court. 2) She would not leave the territorial limits of the city Kolkata without the written permission of the Trial Court and without informing the investigating agency. 3) She would report before the Trial Court and the investigating officer once a month, till the investigation in the case is completed in full. 4) She would not in any way hinder or try to influence the investigation in any manner whatsoever and would not endeavor to either tamper with any evidence or induce/influence/dissuade/intimidate any witness or deal with any record relevant to the case. 5) She would cooperate with the investigation and would always be available to be interrogated by the Investigating Agency. 6) Any other condition as the Trial Court may consider to be appropriate if and as and when necessary. 7) We hereby clarify that breach or non-compliance of any of the above conditions would entail immediate cancellation of the bail granted, either suo motu or on any complaint made by any quarter whatsoever. 8) Apart therefrom, such a breach or non compliance would be viewed very seriously and would visit the appellant with stringent adverse consequences as contemplated in law. The Trial Court as well as the Investigating Agency are directed to keep continuous vigil in the matter so as to, if need be, bring to the notice of this Court any conduct or action of the appellant warranting recall of this order.

Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of bail for the appellant.
2. Allegations and evidence against the appellant.
3. Medical condition and judicial custody of the appellant.
4. Legal principles governing bail in economic offenses.
5. Conditions for granting bail.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Rejection of Bail for the Appellant:
The appellant, an accused in the "Chit Fund Scam" involving the Saradha Group of Companies, challenged the rejection of her bail by the lower courts. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and heard arguments from both sides. The appellant had been in judicial custody for over 15 months and sought release pending further investigation by the CBI.

2. Allegations and Evidence Against the Appellant:
The appellant was accused of being involved in a criminal conspiracy to defraud depositors by collecting funds under false pretenses. The investigation revealed that the Saradha Group collected approximately ?7,74,33,59,929/- from depositors, promising high returns but failing to deliver ?569,26,28,095/-. The appellant allegedly entered into dubious transactions with Sudipta Sen, including a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and an agreement to sell shares of M/s GNN India Limited to M/s Bengal Media Private Limited for ?50 crores. The CBI argued that these transactions were fronts for laundering illegal deposits and that the appellant was aware of the fraudulent nature of the Saradha Group's business.

3. Medical Condition and Judicial Custody of the Appellant:
The appellant had been in various hospitals since her arrest due to multiple ailments, including ischemic heart disease, asthma, unstable angina, dysfunctional uterine bleeding, constant nausea, and lower back pain. The CBI contended that her medical condition was not a valid reason for bail and that she had managed to avoid incarceration by staying in hospitals. However, the medical records suggested that her ailments were genuine, and there was no evidence of misuse of her liberty while in hospitals.

4. Legal Principles Governing Bail in Economic Offenses:
The Supreme Court referred to its judgment in Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2012) 1 SCC 40, which emphasized that deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment unless necessary to ensure the accused's presence at trial. The Court highlighted that bail is neither punitive nor preventive and that detention of under-trial prisoners for an indefinite period violates Article 21 of the Constitution. The seriousness of the charge is a relevant consideration, but not the sole factor in granting bail.

5. Conditions for Granting Bail:
The Supreme Court granted bail to the appellant, subject to several conditions to ensure her cooperation with the ongoing investigation and prevent any hindrance or influence on the investigation. The conditions included surrendering her passport, not leaving Kolkata without permission, reporting to the Trial Court and investigating officer once a month, not tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, and cooperating with the investigation. The Court also warned that any breach of these conditions would result in immediate cancellation of bail and serious consequences.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and granted bail to the appellant, balancing the right to liberty with the need for an unhindered investigation. The order was specific to the facts of the case and not to be cited as a precedent.

← Previous Next →