9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (10) TMI 1069 - HC - Indian LawsSeeking grant of Bail - contention is that the mutual fund units in question were voluntarily transferred by OCL and DCEL to three companies of the petitioner to utilize the dead assets of the company and offer the same as collateral, with a view to avail margin for trading - whether the petitioner, who is alleged of committing an offence involving about ₹ 344 Crores, is entitled to bail or not? - HELD THAT - A perusal of the judgment in SANJAY CHANDRA VERSUS CBI 2011 (11) TMI 537 - SUPREME COURT indicates that the magnitude of the offence cannot be the only criterion for denying bail. The object of bail is to secure the presence of the accused at the Trial. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative and the person who has not been convicted should be held in custody pending Trial only to ensure his attendance at Trial; and to ensure that the evidence is not tampered with and the witnesses are not threatened. If there is no apprehension of interference in administration of justice in a criminal trial by an accused then a person should not be deprived of his liberty. Only a vague belief that he will tamper with evidence cannot be a ground to deprive a person of his liberty. Gravity of the offence cannot be the sole ground to deny bail to the accused. The investigation against the accused has been completed and the charge sheet has been filed as on 11.11.2019. The further investigation that is being carried out is with respect to other authorities and the accused has no role to play therein. The evidences are documentary in nature and all the relevant documents are within the custody of the prosecution. Therefore, there is no likelihood of tampering of evidence. This court is inclined to grant bail, subject to the conditions imposed - application allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 2. Allegations of fraud and misappropriation. 3. Nature and gravity of economic offences. 4. Investigation and evidence. 5. Previous rejections of bail applications. 6. Conditions for granting bail. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Bail Application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.: The petitioner sought bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No.46/2019 for offences under Sections 406/420/467/468/471/120B of the IPC. The petitioner argued that he had been in custody for 16 months, had cooperated with the investigation, and that the evidence against him was primarily documentary. The petitioner emphasized that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, citing the principle that pre-trial detention should not be punitive. 2. Allegations of Fraud and Misappropriation: The petitioner, as the managing director of AFSPL, was accused of fraudulently transferring securities worth ?344.07 Crores from the complainant's Demat accounts to his own accounts and those of related entities. The complainant alleged that these securities were used without authorization as collateral for trading, resulting in a wrongful gain of ?380 Crores for the petitioner and a corresponding loss to the complainant. 3. Nature and Gravity of Economic Offences: The complainant's counsel argued that the petitioner committed serious economic offences, including forgery and breach of trust, which warranted severe punishment. The counsel cited previous judgments to emphasize that economic offences should not be treated leniently and that the magnitude of the fraud justified denying bail. 4. Investigation and Evidence: The charge-sheet detailed the petitioner's role in manipulating account credentials, forging documents, and misappropriating mutual fund units. SEBI's forensic audit confirmed the allegations, leading to the imposition of penalties and restrictions on the petitioner and his company. The court noted that the investigation was complete, and the evidence was primarily documentary, reducing the risk of tampering. 5. Previous Rejections of Bail Applications: The petitioner's bail applications had been rejected multiple times by various courts, including the High Court and the Supreme Court. The complainant's counsel argued that there was no change in circumstances to warrant a different decision. However, the court observed that the Supreme Court's order dated 16.03.2021, which transferred securities to the complainant, constituted a change in circumstances. 6. Conditions for Granting Bail: The court granted bail to the petitioner, emphasizing that the object of bail is to secure the accused's presence at trial, not to punish pre-conviction. The court imposed several conditions, including a personal bond of ?5,00,000, surrendering the passport, residing at a specified address, not leaving Delhi NCR without permission, keeping mobile numbers operational, and not tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. Conclusion: The court granted bail to the petitioner, subject to stringent conditions, recognizing the principle that pre-trial detention should not be punitive and that the magnitude of the offence alone cannot justify denial of bail. The court's decision was influenced by the completion of the investigation, the documentary nature of the evidence, and the Supreme Court's order transferring securities to the complainant.
|
