2014 (11) TMI 1287 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of regular bail - whether the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as no role has been assigned to the applicant? - HELD THAT - No doubt that Sanjay Chandra s case (supra) and Suresh Kalmadi s CWG Scam, reinforce and revisit the basic principles of law with regard to grant of bail. However, it is important to pay due consideration to the phrase that bail is the real and jail is exception and further that while granting bail to the accused not only gravity of the offences is to be seen, but also the fact as to whether accused would be available to face the trial or flee away from the process of law or he should not have propensity to win over the witnesses or tamper with the evidence. This Court is also cognizant of the fact that there is a fundamental difference between the said cases and the present case. In the said cases, no member of the general public was affected directly rather it was the public exchequer who was put to loss by not holding auction of government resources or by over invoicing lenders which is totally different from the facts of the present case where the applicants floated advertisement and made proposal for pre-launch of residential projects and collected hundreds of crores of rupees by inducing, misrepresenting and suppressing the material facts. The applicants were able to gain confidence of the public to invest money in their scheme by promising them to allot land in their various projects and was able to gain their confidence and subsequently cheated them of their hard earned money of about Rs.200 crores. This kind of activity ultimately shows a great deal of deliberation and preparation. In the instant case the gravity and implications of the offence have a far reaching effect and the applicants have cheated innocent persons to the tune of Rs.200 crores approximately). Considering in totality the facts and circumstances of the case and the allegations against the applicants, the applicants do not deserve to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, both the applications are dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the applicants deserve bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
2. The role and involvement of the applicants in the alleged offences.
3. The gravity and implications of the alleged economic offences.
4. The previous conduct of the applicants and their potential to tamper with evidence or flee from justice.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the applicants deserve bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.:
The applicants filed applications for bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. The court considered the gravity of the offences, the potential for the applicants to flee or tamper with evidence, and the impact on the public. The court emphasized the principle that "bail is the real and jail is the exception," but noted that the severity of economic offences and their impact on the public warranted a different approach. The court concluded that the applicants do not deserve to be enlarged on bail due to the serious nature of the allegations and the substantial amount of money involved.

2. The role and involvement of the applicants in the alleged offences:
The applicants were accused in FIR No.737/2007 under Sections 420/406/120B IPC. The complainant alleged that the accused company, M/s. VIAN Infrastructure Ltd., misrepresented its ownership of land and induced the complainant to invest in a non-existent project. The applicants were implicated in the charge-sheets filed by the prosecution, which included numerous complaints and witnesses. The court noted that the applicants were involved in the operation of gaining the trust of the public and cheating them out of approximately Rs.200 crores.

3. The gravity and implications of the alleged economic offences:
The court highlighted the seriousness of economic offences, citing the Supreme Court's judgment in "Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy vs. Central Bureau of Investigation," which stated that economic offences with deep-rooted conspiracies and involving significant public funds should be viewed seriously. The court emphasized that such offences have a far-reaching effect on the community and the economy, and therefore, the applicants' bail applications were dismissed.

4. The previous conduct of the applicants and their potential to tamper with evidence or flee from justice:
The court considered the applicants' past conduct, including their involvement in other fraudulent activities and their attempts to deceive the court with false documents. The court noted that the applicants had shown a propensity to commit such offences repeatedly and had scant respect for the law. The court also considered the potential for the applicants to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses, further justifying the denial of bail.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the bail applications of both applicants, emphasizing the gravity of the offences, the substantial amount of money involved, and the potential for the applicants to tamper with evidence or flee from justice. The court directed the trial court to expedite the trial and examine all prosecution witnesses within six months. A copy of the order was sent to the trial court.

Crl.M.A.16198/2014:
The application was dismissed as infructuous.