9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1978X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wed seriously. Economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design solely with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the community. In such type of offences, while granting bail, the Court has to keep in mind, inter alia, the larger interest of public and State. The nature and seriousness of an economic offence and its impact on the society are always important considerations in such a case and those aspects must squarely be dealt with by the Court while passing an order on bail applications. Taking into account the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record against the petitioner relating to the commission of the offences under which charge sheet has been submitted, the nature and gravity of the accusation, the nature of supporting evidence, the severity of punishment in case of conviction, the manner in which huge amount of money was collected in contravention of the provisions of SEBI Act and CIS Regulations and the innocent poor persons were cheated of their hard earned money on the basis of the false assurance, it would not be proper to release the petitioner on bail. Bail application dismissed. - BLAPL No. 7580 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... company changed to Samruddha Jeevan Foods India Ltd. As per the Memorandum of Association, the main objectives of the company was to carry on business i.e. to produce, breed, manufacture, purchase, sell, transfer, lease, develop, care, import, export, hire, licence, use, dispose off for commercial use of all types of animals and live stock such as goat, sheep etc. and also to manufacture all types of food products, agricultural products, fertilizers, animal foods, farming and plantation and to deal with all types of animals and their products. The Authorised share capital of the company in the year 2002 in Gurukrupa Diary Pvt. Ltd. was ₹ 1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh only) divided into 10,000 (ten thousand) equity share of ₹ 10/- each. The petitioner was one of the founder directors of the company and her husband was the Managing Director. There were other directors of the company. As per resolution passed by the Board of Directors in the year 2013, the authorised share capital of the company increased from rupees twenty crores to rupees twenty five crores. The investigation further revealed that the company collected and mobilized deposits from the public throug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eneral public. The company initially carried on the business of purchase, sale, dealing, trading, breeding and rearing in livestock, including selling the by-products of the livestock like milk, dung, etc. The company invested a substantial amount of money collected from purchases and from investors in assets like land and other infrastructures and also spent substantial amount on advertisements and business promotion and for other purposes. During the course of investigation by CBI, it revealed that the company was collecting investment from customers with a promise of high returns in the guise of operating schemes dealing with goats and buffaloes. The investors did not have any control over the management and operation of the schemes or arrangements. More than six hundred bank accounts were traced which were opened/maintained in the name of the company at different banks like Axis Bank, State Bank of India, ING Vysya Bank/Kotak Mahindra Bank, ICICI Bank etc. Out of the above accounts, in majority of accounts, the husband of the petitioner was one of the authorised signatory along with others. The statement of accounts and scrutiny of the bank accounts revealed that there are s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... k Ltd. Shivaji Nagar Branch, Pune of the petitioner. Apart from that, an amount of ₹ 20,00,000/- has been diverted from various bank accounts of the company to the bank account No.4362, maintained with Puna Merchant Coop. Bank Ltd., Padmavati, Pune of the petitioner. Hence, a total sum of ₹ 16,35,67,964/- was found to have been diverted to the bank account of the petitioner from the bank accounts of the company. Hence, the petitioner being a promoter Director of the company and a stake holder of the company misappropriated a sum of ₹ 16,35,67,964/-, as the investors were not paid back their deposits as assured on maturity. It revealed during further investigation of the case that the petitioner and Mr. Rajendra Pandurang Bhandare, Directors of the company entered into criminal conspiracy with other co-accused already charge sheeted as well as the company and in pursuance thereof, they cheated the public and subsequently misappropriated the public money collected illegally from the gullible investors in the guise of sale/purchase of livestock which constitute offences punishable under sections 120-B, 420, 409 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 4, 5 and 6 of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctively associated with the company as Director. The money which was transferred to the accounts of the petitioner was her salary and other remunerations and the Investigating Officer has given it a name of misappropriation just to harass the petitioner. It is further submitted that since the charge sheet contains thousands of pages and there are more than hundred of witnesses and since charges have not yet been framed, the trial would take years for its completion and since there is no chance of absconding or tampering with the evidence, therefore, the bail application may be sympathetically considered. 5. Mr. Anup Kumar Bose, learned Asst. Solicitor General appearing for the Republic of India, on the other hand, submitted that so far as this case is concerned, the petitioner was taken on remand on 17.05.2018, which is also reflected in the second charge sheet, which was filed on 12.09.2018. Co-accused Mahesh Kisan Motewar, on the other hand, was taken on remand in the case on 27.04.2016 though he was arrested in connection with other cases on 16.12.2015. Therefore, the period of detention of the petitioner is much lesser than that of the coaccused Mahesh Kisan Motewar. It is s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... buffalos etc., the company collected huge amount from the depositors. It is submitted that further investigation of the case is under progress. The role of other Directors are yet to be found out so also the money trailing, larger conspiracy and role of regulatory authorities like ROC, SEBI and RBI. It is submitted that the gravity of the accusation is severe, period of detention for a substantial period cannot be a ground to grant bail. It is submitted that the petitioner was inducted as Director of the company on 29.04.2002 and she continued as such till 15.12.2003 at the first instance and on the second instance, she joined as a Director on 24.10.2013 but she resigned from the Directorship of the company on 25.10.2013. It is argued that the submission of the petitioner s counsel that the money which was transferred to the accounts of the petitioner was her salary and other remuneration is not correct. The petitioner was a major stake holder of the company and she misappropriated huge amount. It is further submitted that the complicity of the petitioner prima facie revealed during investigation and there is chance of her absconding as well as tampering with the evidence. It is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mination of evidence and elaborate discussion on merits of the case need not be undertaken for grant of bail. The Court has to indicate in the bail order, reasons for prima facie conclusion why bail was being granted, particularly, when the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. In the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar -Vrs.- Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav reported in 2004 Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) 1977, it is held as follows: 11....The Court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail, a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from nonapplication of mind. It is also necessary for the Court to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail: (a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scretion of the Court. The grant or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. But at the same time, right to bail is not to be denied merely because of the sentiments of the community against the accused. The primary purposes of bail in a criminal case are to relieve the accused of imprisonment, to relieve the State of the burden of keeping him, pending the trial, and at the same time, to keep the accused constructively in the custody of the Court, whether before or after conviction, to assure that he will submit to the jurisdiction of the Court and be in attendance thereon whenever his presence is required . The law relating to bail in a case of economic offences in is more or less settled in view of the decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Y.S. Jagarmohon Reddy -Vrs.- CBI reported in (2013) 55 Orissa Criminal Reports (SC) 825, State of Gujurat -Vrs.- Mohan Lal Jitamalji Porwal reported in A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 1321 and Nimmagadda Prasad -Vrs.- CBI reported in (2013) 7 Supreme Court Cases 466. In the case of Y.S. Jagan Mohan (supra), it is held as follows:- 15. Economic offences constitute a class apart and ne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... design solely with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the community. In such type of offences, while granting bail, the Court has to keep in mind, inter alia, the larger interest of public and State. The nature and seriousness of an economic offence and its impact on the society are always important considerations in such a case and those aspects must squarely be dealt with by the Court while passing an order on bail applications. No doubt at the stage of granting bail, detailed examination of evidence and elaborate discussions on merits of the case need not be taken but the order must reflect the reasons for arriving at a prima facie conclusion as to why bail was being granted particularly when the accused-petitioner is charged with economic offences. Discretion should be used in a proper and judicious manner and the Court must take note of the nature of accusation, the nature of supporting evidence, the severity of punishment in case of conviction, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the evidence, criminal antecedents etc. Bail should not be denied merely because the sentiments of the community are against the accused. 8. Coming to the contenti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he co-accused, who has been enlarged on bail by the Hon ble Supreme Court, in other words, the petitioner has remained in custody for a much lesser period than the coaccused. 9. Let me now consider the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding favourable consideration of bail of the petitioner being a woman in view of the proviso to section 437(1) of Cr.P.C. Under section 437 (1) of the Code, when a person accused of, or suspected of, the commission of any non-bailable offence is arrested or detained without warrant by an officer in charge of a police station or appears or is brought before a Court other than the High Court and Court of Session, he may be released on bail by the Court subject to the conditions that he does not reasonably appear to have been guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The conditions of not releasing the person on bail charged with an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life shall not be applicable if such person is under the age of sisteen years or is a woman or is sick or infirm, subject to such conditions as may be imposed. It does not, however, mean that persons specified in the fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
