2015 (3) TMI 1440 - HC - Indian Laws

Application under section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking for bail - illegal diversion of money - crime against public at large having wide ramification over the society - parity in granting bail - It is contended that since the petitioner has not moved the learned Court below for bail after submission of charge sheet, this bail application should not be entertained. HELD THAT - The petitioner was one of the Directors of Prism Heights Company and she was directly involved in the affairs of the AT Group of Companies. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has not played any active role with regard to the collection of any amount from the public by AT Group of Companies is not acceptable in as much as it has come on record that the petitioner used to motivate the depositors to invest in AT Group of Companies for higher returns. The further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that she was neither the Director of AT Group of Companies nor connected in the alleged Chit-Fund Scam prima facie appears to be not correct as the materials on record indicate that the petitioner was frequently visiting Bhubaneswar to attend the meetings of the Directors of AT Group of Companies - The contentions that the amount transferred from the accounts of AT Group of Companies to the account of the petitioner were utilized by Prism Heights Company for the payment of artists, directors, cameraman, staff etc. in the production of tele serials is not borne out of the charge sheet and there is also no documentary evidence in support of such contentions. The materials on record further indicate that there was deep-rooted criminal conspiracy between the petitioner and some co-accused persons including accused Pradeep Kumar Sethy with the patronage of some politicians, police officers, executives and other influential persons as a result of which innocent depositors were allured to invest their hard earned money with AT Group of Companies and the petitioner being a motivator has played crucial role in cheating the public and misappropriating more than a crore of rupees. Considering the nature of accusations, the punishment prescribed for the offences under which charge sheet has been submitted, prima facie availability of supporting materials to establish such accusations, the continuance of further investigation to unearth many vital links, role played by the petitioner in the entire episode, the impact of such economic offences on the society particularly on the common man who are poor, downtrodden, underprivileged and belong to the middle class families waiting with distraught tearful eyes and anguish to get back their investment in spite of setting up of Commission of Enquiry to probe multi-crore Chit-Fund Scam by the State Government since July, 2013 and creation of Corpus Fund for the protection of interest of the depositors, merely because the petitioner is a woman and merely because some of the co-accused persons have been released on bail, in the larger interests of public and State, the petitioner cannot be released on bail at this stage. Bail application dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the bail application before the High Court after the submission of the charge sheet.
2. Parity in granting bail.
3. Nature and gravity of the allegations against the petitioner.
4. Consideration of bail for the petitioner being a woman under Section 437(1) Cr.P.C.
5. Impact of economic offences on society and public interest.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Bail Application:
The petitioner filed for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The Special Public Prosecutor objected, stating the petitioner should have moved the lower court after the charge sheet was submitted. The court held that both the Sessions Court and the High Court exercise concurrent powers under Section 439 Cr.P.C. and that the petitioner's application is maintainable. The court referenced the case of *Twinkle Soni alias Rakesh Kumar Verma and Bablu Yadav Vs. The State of Jharkhand 2010 Criminal Law Journal 2213*, concluding that an applicant can approach the High Court directly without first moving the trial court after the submission of the charge sheet.

2. Parity in Granting Bail:
The petitioner argued for bail on the grounds of parity, as some co-accused were granted bail. The court noted that parity cannot be the sole ground for granting bail. It must be considered along with other factors, such as the nature of the allegations and the role of the accused. The court cited *Chandigarh Administration -v- Jagjit Singh [1995] 1 SCR 126* and *Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority - v- Daulatmal Jain (1997) 1 SCC 35*, emphasizing that each case must be evaluated on its own merits.

3. Nature and Gravity of the Allegations:
The petitioner was a Director of Prism Heights Company and was actively involved in the affairs of the AT Group of Companies. The charge sheet indicated that Rs. 1,17,83,000/- was illegally diverted to her personal account. Witness statements and documentary evidence suggested her involvement in motivating depositors and participating in meetings of the AT Group. The court highlighted that economic offences with deep-rooted conspiracies involving huge public funds are considered grave and require a different approach in bail matters, referencing *Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy -v- CBI (2013) 55 Orissa Criminal Report (SC) 825*.

4. Consideration of Bail for the Petitioner Being a Woman:
The petitioner sought bail under the proviso to Section 437(1) Cr.P.C., which allows bail for women. The court acknowledged that while the proviso is an enabling provision, it does not mandate bail. The court must consider the nature and gravity of the offence, the role of the accused, and the potential impact on society. The court referenced *Sanjay Chandra -v- CBI AIR 2012 SC 830*, distinguishing it from the current case as the investigation was ongoing, and the charges included offences punishable with life imprisonment.

5. Impact of Economic Offences on Society and Public Interest:
The court emphasized the broader implications of economic offences, which affect the financial health of the country and the public's trust in the system. The court cited *State of Gujarat -v- Mohan Lal Jitamalji Porwal AIR 1987 SC 1321* and *Nimmagadda Prasad -v- CBI (2013) 7 Supreme Court Cases 466*, stressing the need for a stringent approach in such cases. The court concluded that the petitioner's release could hamper the ongoing investigation and affect public interest.

Conclusion:
After considering the submissions, the court found that the petitioner played a crucial role in the alleged offences, involving significant public funds and a deep-rooted conspiracy. Given the ongoing investigation and the nature of the allegations, the court rejected the bail application, prioritizing the larger interests of the public and the state.