9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (5) TMI 417X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitted default in payment of the principal amount and interest on the deposits. Dr. Motwani was arrested on 8th May, 2003 and Mr. Relwani was arrested on 9th May, 2003 in respect of the alleged offences committed by the two applicants by non-payment of the deposits to the deposit holders. Both of them are charged under sections 406, 420, 120B of the Indian Penal Code read with sections 3 and 4 of Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (for short "MPID Act") and the common offence has been registered against both of them in NERC No. 1 of 2003. As the offence alleged arise out of the same transactions and the common offence has been registered, both the Bail Applications are being decided by this common order. 3. The facts in brief may be narrated as under:- 4. Both the two companies are incorporated and registered as Public Limited Companies and are in existence for last many years. Till about the year 2000, the companies showed profits. The companies invited fixed deposits from the members of the public painting the rosy picture about the profitability of the Companies. It is alleged that soon thereafter, the companies started mak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ants were produced before the Special Judge with a request that they be remanded to the police custody. The applicants applied for bail. The prayer of the applicants for bail was rejected and the applicants were remanded to police custody till 25th May, 2003. Thereafter, the applicants have approached this Court for bail by the present applications on 12th May, 2003. 6. At the hearing, some of the investors were present through their Counsel Shri Rajendra Solankar and about a dozen persons claiming to be the investors were also present in persons. They sought permission of the Court for being heard. The permission was granted and they were also permitted to file the affidavits, if any. The only issue that arises for my consideration is whether the applicants should be released on bail and if so, subject to what terms and conditions. 7. Shri Suresh Babu Kilje, Police Inspector has filed Affidavits dated 14th May, 2003 and 15th May, 2003. On behalf of the investors, Shri Shyam Gopaldas Ahuja and Dinshaw Framrose Karai have filed affidavits dated 15th May, 2003. The learned Counsel for the applicants states that as the applicants were in Police custody, they could not swear the affi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icants if they are detained in the police custody for sufficiently long period of time. I proceed to examine the grounds on which the bail is opposed. Regarding ground No. (iii) : 10. When the person charged with an offence is apprehended and the Court often remands him to the police custody (for a period not exceeding 15 days) to facilitate the investigation into the alleged crime. This detention is not by way of punishment and has wrongly been understood to be punitive detention by the people in general and the investors in this case in particular. Pre-trial detention, whether it be in the police custody or in Judicial custody, is never by way of a punishment to condemn the accused even before the trial. The accused who is charged with whatever offence, howsoever heinous, its entitled to a fair trial and is not remanded to police custody by way of punishment. The contention of the investors that the applicants should be denied bail to set an example to the prospective scamsters proceeds on the wrong assumption that the police custody is by way of a punishment. In Bhagiratsingh Judeja v. State of Gujarat reported in 1994 Criminal LJ, 160, the Supreme Court in paragraph No. 5 st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Judge on 8th January, 2003. It thus appears that the investigation was completed by 8th January, 2003. For what further investigations the custodial presence of the applicants is needed before the police? Is it the case of the police that despite the order of the Special Judge dated 30th November, 2002, they had still not carried out the complete investigation? Is it their case that they did not interrogate the applicants and/or examine the witnesses including the investors? These questions remain unanswered. May be that on reading the report submitted by the police, the Special Judge was not satisfied and directed further investigation by Senior Police Officers but, that does not per se mean that the custodial presence of the applicants is needed for further investigation. The applicants can be directed to attend the police station as and when required without they being in police custody. After all, liberty of a citizen who is not yet proved to be guilty of a crime is dear to the Courts. Except for a bare allegation that custodial presence of the applicants is needed for further investigation, no details are furnished as to why these investigations cannot be carried out without t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which was made under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act. May be that the applicants made a misadventure in the business. On ultimate trial, the applicants may or may not be convicted but no case is made out for custodial presence of the applicants for the purpose of investigation. 14. In Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration) AIR 1978 SC 179, the Supreme Court laid down the factors to be taken into consideration while granting the bail. In paragraph 24 of the judgment, the Supreme Court observed: ". . . The overriding considerations in granting bail to which we adverted to earlier and which are common both in the case of S. 437(1) and S.439(1), Cr. P.C. of the New Code are the nature and gravity of the circumstances in which the offence is committed; the position and the status of the accused with reference to the victim and the witnesses; the likelihood, of the accused fleeing from justice; of repeating the offence; of jeopardising his own life being faced with a grim prospect of possible conviction in the case; of tampering with witnesses; the history of the case as well as of its investigation and other relevant grounds which, in view of so many v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
