2023 (11) TMI 667 - DSC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of Bail - applicant was not arrested during the investigation - cheating 13000 investors to the tune of Rs.5600 crores - HELD THAT - The FIR, for the offences u/s 409, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474, 477- A, 120-B of IPC, u/s 3 of the MPID Act and sections 21(a), 21(b), 21(c) and 21(g) of the FCR Act, 1952 was registered way back in the year 2013. According to applicant, he has furnished all record and documents in the form of electronic data in soft copies, hard-disk, server and e-mails to the investigation agency. Today the applicant is present before the court pursuant to the fact he was served with the summons issued by this court. The investigation machinery choose not to arrest the applicant, for 10 long years, inspite of the fact that, the applicant was available. Rather, it can be gathered that the I.O. did not want his custody. The offences u/s 467 is punishable for imprisonment for life. The prosecution has not placed any criminal antecedents on record except for the present case. There are no allegations that the applicant has not co-operated with the investigation agency. There will be no point in sending the accused in jail as investigation is completed and charge-sheet is filed. It is directed that Applicant/accused Sunil Gupta, be released on execution P.R. bond of Rs.50,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount - Today the applicant/accused Sunil Gupta, be released on furnishing Provisional cash bail of Rs.50,000/- - bail application allowed.

Summary

Issues involved: Bail application under section 439 r/w 88 of Cr.P.C. in connection with MPID Special Case no.1 of 2014.

Summary:

Issue 1: Grounds for Bail Application
The applicant, a practicing Chartered Accountant, filed a bail application stating he was not arrested during the investigation, cooperated with the agencies, and has no criminal antecedents. The investigation is complete, and he responded to summons, clarifying his professional services up to a certain financial year and lack of possession of relevant documents. The applicant prayed for bail based on these grounds.

Issue 2: Prosecution's Opposition
The Special Public Prosecutor opposed the bail, alleging that the accused cheated investors, committed economic offenses, and are charged under various sections with punishments exceeding 10 years. Concerns were raised about the likelihood of absconding, delaying trial, and lack of residential address provided by the applicant.

Issue 3: Court's Decision
After hearing both parties, the court noted the FIR registered in 2013 and the applicant's cooperation during the investigation. The court observed that despite serious charges, the applicant was not arrested for ten years, indicating the investigating officer's lack of interest in custody. The court found no criminal antecedents except for the present case and no allegations of non-cooperation. Considering the circumstances, the court granted bail to the applicant with specific terms and conditions to ensure his availability for trial and prevent any tampering with evidence.

Separate Judgement: None

This judgment by the Special Judge allowed the bail application of the applicant/accused no.161 in connection with MPID Special Case no.1 of 2014. The court considered the grounds presented by the applicant, the prosecution's opposition highlighting the seriousness of the offenses, and ultimately granted bail with stringent conditions to safeguard the prosecution's interests and ensure the applicant's presence during the trial proceedings.