2023 (3) TMI 881 - SC - Indian Laws

Grant of anticipatory bail - Creation of bogus bills and fake lorry receipts - Company had connived and conspired with advocates and valuers hired by the consortium of banks; and that therefore the promoters/directors of the Company, the guarantors as well as those involved in the sanction of the loan were guilty of the offences complained - HELD THAT - Admittedly, the CBI did not require the custodial interrogation of the appellants during the period of investigation from 29.06.2019 (date of filing of FIR) till 31.12.2021 (date of filing of the final report). Therefore, it is difficult to accept the contention that at this stage the custody of the appellants may be required - All transactions out of which the complaint had arisen, seem to have taken place during the period 2009-2010 to 2012-2013 and all are borne out by records. When the primary focus is on documentary evidence, we fail to understand as to why the appellants should now be arrested. More importantly, the appellants apprehend arrest, not at the behest of the CBI but at the behest of the Trial Court. This is for the reason that in some parts of the country, there seems to be a practice followed by Courts to remand the accused to custody, the moment they appear in response to the summoning order. The correctness of such a practice has to be tested in an appropriate case. Suffice for the present to note that it is not the CBI which is seeking their custody, but the appellants apprehend that they may be remanded to custody by the Trial Court and this is why they seek protection. The appellants are entitled to be released on bail, in the event of the Court choosing to remand them to custody, when they appear in response to the summoning order. Therefore, the appeals are allowed and the appellants are directed to be released on bail, in the event of their arrest, subject to such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the Special Court, including the condition for the surrender of the passport, if any. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment deals with the issue of rejection of applications for anticipatory bail by accused in FIR No. RC 219 2019 E0006, involving alleged offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120B IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

Details of the Judgment:

Facts and Allegations:
The First Information Report (FIR) was registered at the instance of Corporation Bank against a company securing credit facilities from a consortium of banks, leading to the account being classified as fraudulent. Accused were alleged to have conspired with advocates and valuers, resulting in fraudulent activities.

Investigation and Court Proceedings:
Although the FIR was lodged in 2019, none of the accused were taken into custody by the CBI, and all accused cooperated with the investigation. After the completion of the investigation, the CBI filed the final report in 2021. Subsequently, the accused moved applications for anticipatory bail, which were rejected by the Special Court and confirmed by the High Court.

Accused and Allegations:
Accused individuals were involved in various activities such as creating bogus bills, operating fraudulent accounts, and providing false guarantees. Serious allegations were made against them, leading to the denial of anticipatory bail by the lower courts.

Factors Favoring Appellants:
The Court considered three factors in favor of the appellants. Firstly, the CBI did not require custodial interrogation during the investigation period. Secondly, the CBI sought the presence of the accused for trial, not for custody. Thirdly, all transactions in question were supported by documentary evidence, questioning the need for arrest.

Apprehension of Arrest and Bail Grant:
The appellants feared arrest by the Trial Court, not the CBI. The Court acknowledged this concern and granted bail to the appellants, subject to terms and conditions imposed by the Special Court, including surrendering passports if any.

Conclusion:
The judgment allowed the appeals and directed the release of the appellants on bail in case of arrest, considering the circumstances and the apprehension of custody by the Trial Court. The decision was made based on the facts, legal arguments, and the need to balance the interests of justice.