9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (3) TMI 1027 - HC - Money LaunderingSeeking grant of Bail - corruption and abuse of high public office - HELD THAT - The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the decision reported in 2019 (9) TMI 286 - SUPREME COURT , has considered the scope of bail in economic offences involving corruption and abuse of high public office and in paragraph nos.18 to 23 has observed that '' basic jurisprudence relating to bail is that bail is the rule and refusal is the exception, etc., Though gravity of offence is an important factor and economic offences as in present case are considered grave, consideration for grant of bail would depend upon facts of each case and taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances, has enlarged P.Chidambaram, on bail, subject to certain conditions'. Granting of bail is a discretional relief and it is a well settled position of law that bail is the rule and jail is the exception. Though the respective learned counsels appearing for the parties has placed reliance upon the above said judgments, in the considered opinion of this Court, there cannot be any precedent in the matter of granting bail and the consideration to grant or refuse to grant bail, have to be decided on case to case basis and depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of ₹ 1,00,000/- with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Court of Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai - Bail is granted subject to conditions imposed - application allowed.
Issues:
Bail application for accused in economic offences case. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Change of Circumstances for Bail Application The petitioners filed a second bail application, citing a change in circumstances due to a new complaint filed by the respondent. The investigation was completed, and a complaint was filed, leading to a new stage in the case. The petitioners argued that this change warranted reconsideration for bail. Issue 2: Arguments for Bail by Petitioners The petitioners' counsel highlighted that the investigation was completed, and the complaint was filed, reducing the risk of hampering the investigation or tampering with witnesses. They also assured full cooperation with the Investigating Agency if granted bail. Additionally, the surrender of passports and the seizure of documents were mentioned to show the lack of intent to flee. Issue 3: Prosecution's Opposition to Bail The Special Public Prosecutor opposed the bail petitions, emphasizing the seriousness of the economic offences involving diversion of funds and fraud. The petitioners were accused of not cooperating with the Agency previously, leading to the cancellation of bail. The prosecutor argued that granting bail could hinder the investigation and witness tampering. Issue 4: Legal Precedents and Arguments Both sides referenced legal precedents, including the Supreme Court's stance on economic offences and bail considerations. The prosecution relied on cases highlighting the severity of economic offences and the need to prevent tampering with evidence and witnesses. Issue 5: Court's Decision and Conditions for Bail The Court considered the arguments and legal precedents, emphasizing that bail is a discretionary relief. Despite the seriousness of the offences, the Court granted bail to the petitioners with specific conditions. The bail conditions included executing a bond, regular reporting to the Investigating Agency, and warnings against breaching conditions or interfering with the investigation. Conclusion The Court granted bail to the petitioners based on the specific circumstances and conditions outlined. The decision balanced the seriousness of the economic offences with the petitioners' cooperation assurances and legal principles governing bail in such cases. This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the judgment regarding the bail application for the accused in an economic offences case, providing a comprehensive overview of the arguments presented by both sides and the Court's decision.
|
