9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (6) TMI 874 - HC - SEBIImplementation of the fraudulent CIS - diversion of funds - as submitted principal perpetrators routed the funds raised from the public and their cooperation grave nature of the charges against the applicant - fake invoices having been generated by the companies in which the applicants were involved - Role of present applicants - Disposal of the present bail applications - HELD THAT - We have decided the present applications independently of those orders, as the said orders concern directors of PGF/PACL 2013 (3) TMI 390 - SUPREME COURT , whose roles are at considerable variance from the roles attributed to the present applicants by the CBI itself. Suffice it to state that while rejecting Mr. Subrata Bhattacharya s application for bail, the Supreme Court specifically noted that the matter involved an alleged criminal conspiracy in furtherance of which the Directors of M/s PGF Limited and M/s PACL Limited are alleged to have illegally obtained a benefit of Rs 45,184 crores at the expense of 5.46 crore investors spread all over the country from sham land transactions. The Court proceeded on the basis of roles attributed to the applicants therein, as elucidated in the affidavit of the CBI. The applicants in the present case, in contrast, are not directors of PGF/PACL and their roles are required to be independently considered in connection with their applications for bail. As applying the relevant principles to the facts of the present cases, further incarceration of the applicants, pending conclusion of the trial, is unnecessary and they are liable to be released on bail, albeit with stringent conditions to ensure their presence at the trial and to minimise the risk of prejudice to the prosecution. As directed that the applicants will be admitted to bail in connection with FIR No. RCBD1/2014/E/ 0004/CBI/BS FC, registered on 19.02.2014, in Police Station CBI, under Sections 120B/409/411/420/467/468/471/474 of the IPC and Sections 4/5 read with Section 6 of the PCMCS Act. The applicants will furnish a personal bond in the sum of ₹30,00,000/- Rupees Thirty lakhs each, with two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. At least one of the sureties in each case will be from the spouse or a blood relative of the concerned applicant. Each of the applicants will furnish their residential address to the IO, which will be verified by the IO. The applicants will remain resident at the said addresses and will give prior information to the Special Court and the IO in the event of any change of address. The applicants will not leave the country without the permission of the Special Court.
Issues Involved:
1. Grant of bail under Section 439 of the CrPC. 2. Allegations of economic offences involving diversion of funds. 3. Delay in filing the supplementary charge sheet. 4. Compliance with Section 41A of the CrPC. 5. Prior criminal antecedents of the applicants. 6. Risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. 7. Length of trial and incarceration. Detailed Analysis: 1. Grant of Bail under Section 439 of the CrPC: The applications were filed for bail in connection with FIR No. RCBD1/2014/E/0004/CBI/BS & FC, under various sections of the IPC and the PCMCS Act. The court considered the principles that bail is not punitive or preventative but aims to secure the appearance of the person at trial. Even in economic offences, the seriousness of the charge cannot be the sole ground for denial of bail. 2. Allegations of Economic Offences Involving Diversion of Funds: The FIR was registered against PGF Limited and PACL Limited, alleging they carried out a collective investment scheme (CIS) fraudulently. The applicants were accused of facilitating the diversion of funds raised by PGF/PACL from investors. The supplementary charge sheet detailed the roles of the applicants in the alleged diversion of funds through fake invoices and non-executed land development work. 3. Delay in Filing the Supplementary Charge Sheet: The original charge sheet was filed in 2016, and the supplementary charge sheet was filed on 31.12.2021. The court noted that the investigation had been ongoing for over eight years, and the allegations against the applicants had been crystallized in the supplementary charge sheet. The delay in filing the charge sheet was not considered a sufficient ground to deny bail. 4. Compliance with Section 41A of the CrPC: Five of the six applicants were issued notices under Section 41A of the CrPC, indicating that their arrest was not contemplated at that stage. The court found no material change in circumstances to justify their arrest a few weeks later. The statutory provision suggests that arrest under Section 41A should be supported by recorded reasons, which were not provided. 5. Prior Criminal Antecedents of the Applicants: The court considered the prior criminal antecedents of the applicants. It was noted that some applicants had been granted bail or anticipatory bail in other cases, and there was no substantial allegation of non-compliance with notices during the investigation. 6. Risk of Tampering with Evidence or Influencing Witnesses: The court found no material to support the contention that the applicants were likely to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses. The evidence was largely documentary and had been recovered by the CBI over the long course of the investigation. The applicants had complied with notices for production of documents and appearance before the IO. 7. Length of Trial and Incarceration: The court acknowledged that the trial would take a considerable length of time, given the number of witnesses and documents involved. The continued incarceration of the applicants was deemed unnecessary as the investigation had been completed, and the supplementary charge sheet filed. Conclusion: The court directed that the applicants be admitted to bail subject to stringent conditions, including furnishing a personal bond, surrendering passports, reporting to the police station periodically, and not tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. The observations were made solely for the purpose of disposing of the bail applications and would not prejudice the trial. Bail Conditions: - Personal bond of ?30,00,000 each with two sureties. - Furnishing residential address and mobile numbers to the IO. - Surrendering passports. - Attending court hearings and reporting to the police station twice a month. - Not tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. The applications were disposed of with the aforesaid directions, and the pending miscellaneous applications also stood disposed of. A copy of the order was communicated to the concerned Jail Superintendent(s) electronically.
|
