2022 (5) TMI 1649 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of regular bail - white collar crime - misappropriation and fraud against the petitioner - HELD THAT - The petitioner is accused of an offence which can be termed as white collar crime. It is pertinent to mention that as per the status report the petitioner has not cooperated in the investigation even after his arrest. One cannot lose sight of the fact that other co-accused persons are absconding. It is also not the case of the petitioner that the shares were not transferred by him. The allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature and as far as the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that charges have not been framed is concerned, it is evident that learned Trial Court has not taken the cognizance and has directed further investigation in the matter looking into its magnitude. Moreover, SEBI has also passed an order against the company of the petitioner. The cheated amount misappropriated which is more than Rs.200 Crores belongs to gullible public. In Nimmagadda Prasad Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2013 (5) TMI 920 - SUPREME COURT the Supreme Court has observed that bail shall be granted by taking into consideration the facts and circumstances with gravity of offence. There is no straight jacket formula for disposal of a particular bail application and each case has its own peculiar merits. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, the case law relied upon are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand. Keeping in view the aforesaid principles, the totality of facts and circumstances, particularly the gravity of allegations, nature of the crime and also keeping in view the fact that huge amount of public money is involved which is yet to be recovered and the investigation is still pending as learned Trial Court has allowed further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., no ground for bail is made out, therefore, bail applications are dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Petitioner seeking regular bail in two cases under sections 409/420/477A/120B IPC; Allegations of misappropriation and fraud against the petitioner; Non-cooperation in the investigation by the petitioner; SEBI order freezing assets of the company; Dispute between parties characterized as a civil dispute turned criminal; Bail applications opposed on grounds of seriousness of allegations, non-cooperation, absconding co-accused, misappropriation of public funds, and risk of evading the legal process.

Analysis:
The petitions involve the petitioner seeking regular bail in two cases under sections 409/420/477A/120B IPC. The complaints allege that the petitioner, along with others, approached complainants to open Demat accounts, assuring safekeeping of equities. However, it is alleged that the shares were transferred without consent, misappropriated, and pledged as collateral. The petitioner has been in judicial custody, and charges have not been framed despite the lapse of time since the charge sheet was filed. The petitioner's defense relies on the Power of Attorney signed by complainants and transactions reflected in bank and trading accounts.

The petitioner's counsel argued that the case is a civil dispute given a criminal color, emphasizing the petitioner's clean antecedents and societal roots. However, the state and complainant's counsel opposed bail, citing the seriousness of allegations, lack of cooperation, freezing of assets by SEBI, and ongoing investigations. The state highlighted the misappropriation of over Rs.200 Crores, involvement of multiple victims, and absence of a money trail or explanation for the misappropriated funds.

The court noted the serious nature of the allegations, the petitioner's lack of cooperation in the investigation, and the absconding co-accused. The court referenced a Supreme Court judgment on economic offenses, emphasizing the impact of white-collar crimes on the economy and public trust. The court concluded that the gravity of the allegations, involvement of public funds, and pending investigations warranted denial of bail. The court dismissed the bail applications, citing the need to consider the gravity of the offense and the interests of justice.

In the final analysis, the court emphasized the seriousness of economic offenses, the need for a different approach to bail in such cases, and the significance of public funds involved. The court found no grounds for bail due to the gravity of the allegations, pending investigations, and the substantial amount of public money misappropriated. The court's decision to dismiss the bail applications was based on the specific circumstances of the case, including the ongoing investigations and the potential risk of evading legal proceedings.