9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 257X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [ 2021 (2) TMI 1212 - SUPREME COURT ], Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Others [ 1980 (4) TMI 295 - SUPREME COURT ] and Sanjay Chandra [ 2011 (11) TMI 537 - SUPREME COURT ] also do not come to the rescue of the petitioner to seek her release on bail because the facts and circumstances of the case in hand are distinguishable from those of the cited above. In Union of India [ 2021 (2) TMI 1212 - SUPREME COURT ], the Apex Court was dealing with the issue of cancellation of bail in a matter involving Section 43-D(5) of the UAP Act and had, rather, observed that there was a vivid distinction between the parameters to be applied while considering the bail application vis- -vis those, applicable while deciding a petition for its cancellation and moreover, the respondent-accused had been in custody in the said case for more than five years whereas the petitioner has moved this petition with a prayer for grant of bail and she is in custody for the last about 2 years. The petitioner does not deserve the relief of regular bail and the petition in hand, being sans any merit, deserves dismissal - Petition dismissed. - CRM-M No.22815 of 2021 - - - Dated:- 20-12-2021 - HON BLE MRS. JUS ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed written-reply in the instant petition. 4. I have heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Solicitor General of India with learned Senior Panel Counsel (UOI) for the respondent in the present petition and have also perused the record thoroughly. 5. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has contended that throughout during the investigation proceedings, the respondent did not arrest the petitioner and rather, she was arrested in connection with the above-said Complaint Case in pursuance of the order Annexure P-2 as passed by the Court below for taking the cognizance against her whereas in the afore-discussed eventuality, she was entitled to be released on bail on her putting in appearance/being produced before the trial Court. To buttress his contentions, he has placed reliance upon the observations made by the Apex Court in Aman Preet Singh vs C.B.I. Through Director, Criminal Appeal No.929 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.5234/2021) Decided on 02.09.2021 and Siddharth vs The State of Uttar Pradesh Anr, Criminal Appeal No.838 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.5442/2021 Decided on 16.08.2021. 6. Per-contra, learned A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to Section 212(6) of the said Act. 9. However, learned Additional Solicitor General of India and learned Senior Panel counsel (UOI) have argued that the said proviso does not, in itself, entitle a female offender to the relief of bail and keeping in view the fact that the petitioner, along-with her co-accused, has duped the bona-fide/genuine depositors of ACCSL of their life-time earnings, the present petition be dismissed. 10. The offence under Section 447 of the Act of 2013 invites the rigour of Section 212(6) of the Act of 2013 for the purpose of grant of bail which provides as under:- (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),[offence covered under Section 447] of this Act shall be cognizable and no person accused of any offence under those sections shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless- (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release; and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isaged under Section 212(6) of the Act of 2013, so as to extend the relief of bail to her. 12. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has also contended that the petitioner has been granted the relief of interim bail by the Rajasthan High Court in another case vide the order dated 20.12.2019 (Annexure P-3) which has been extended vide the order dated 25.08.2021 as passed in D.B Civil Writ Petition No.4134 of 2021 titled as Rahul Modi and Others vs. State of Rajasthan through PP and even, her co-accused Vijay Shukla has also been granted the interim protection by the Apex Court in Vijay Shukla vs. Serious Fraud Investigation Office Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s) 6338 of 2021 and moreover, she (petitioner) has been in custody in the subject Complaint Case since 01.07.2019 and in these circumstances, she deserves the relief of regular bail. He has placed reliance upon Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021)3 Supreme Court Cases 713; Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Others vs. State of Punjab (1980) 2 Supreme Court Cases 565 and Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2012) 1 Supreme Court Cases 40 , in support of his contentions. 13. Howe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
