2021 (5) TMI 562 - HC - Indian Laws

Bail Application - misappropriation of funds - allegation found against the present applicant is that he induced the complainant to invest himself and others in his scheme to get higher benefit but he neither fulfilled his promise nor returned their money - HELD THAT - As per the statements of complainants and bank statement, prima facie, ₹ 17,00,000/- were found deposited in the account of present applicant by the complainants. The co-accused has already been released on bail by the trial Court. Investigation is completed, charge-sheet has been filed and on account of COVID-19 pandemic, there is every possibility of consuming time in conclusion of trial. The applicant has no criminal past, therefore, there is no possibility of his absconding or tampering with the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The offences alleged have not maximum punishment of more than 7 years imprisonment - The trial Court is also directed to keep the said amount in FDR Scheme at any nationalized Bank of locality. This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the conditions of depositing the amount as well as enumerated under section 437(3) Cr.P.C. by the applicants. Bail granted subject to conditions imposed - Jail Authority shall ensure the medical examination of the applicant by the jail doctor before his release.

Summary

Issues:
Bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for offences under Sections 420 and 201 of IPC.

Analysis:
The applicants sought bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for offences under Sections 420 and 201 of the IPC. The applicants were in custody in connection with a case where they were accused of inducing the complainant to invest in schemes promising high returns, resulting in an alleged embezzlement of around ?60 lakh. The defense argued that the applicant was innocent, falsely implicated, and had not misappropriated any amount. It was contended that the amount received was invested on behalf of the parties, and the applicant was willing to deposit it under protest. The defense highlighted that the co-accused had already been granted bail, the investigation was complete, and the trial process would be time-consuming, especially during the Covid-19 pandemic.

The prosecution opposed the bail application, emphasizing the specific allegations and the involvement of a substantial amount in the case. After hearing both parties and examining the case diary, it was revealed that around ?17,00,000 had been deposited in the applicant's account by the complainants. Considering various factors such as the completion of investigation, filing of charge-sheet, absence of a criminal past, and the potential trial delays due to the pandemic, the court decided to grant bail to the applicant. The court imposed the condition that the applicant must deposit the total amount of ?17,00,000 in three installments before the trial court, with the first installment of ?8,00,000 to be paid at the time of furnishing the bail bond, followed by two equal installments of ?9,00,000 within six months.

The court directed the release of the applicant on bail upon fulfilling the specified conditions, including providing a bail bond and solvent sureties. Additionally, the court ordered the trial court to keep the deposited amount in an FDR scheme at a nationalized bank and instructed the applicant to comply with Covid-19 regulations. The court also issued directions to the jail authority to conduct a medical examination of the applicant before release and take appropriate measures if the applicant was found to be suffering from Covid-19, in line with the guidelines set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in suo moto W.P. No. 1/2020.