9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 1272X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... il. The object of bail is to secure the presence of the accused at the time of trial; this object is, thus, neither punitive nor preventative, and a person who has not been convicted should only be kept in custody if there are reasons to believe that they might flee from justice or tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses. If there is no apprehension of interference in administration of justice in a criminal trial by an accused, then the Court should be circumspect while considering depriving the accused of their personal liberty. Mere vague belief that the accused may thwart the investigation cannot be a ground to prolong the incarceration of the accused. This Court is inclined to grant bail to Petitioner, subject to the conditions imposed - bail application allowed. - BAIL APPLN. 3750/2021, BAIL APPLN. 3921/2021 - - - Dated:- 17-1-2022 - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD For the Petitioner : Mr. Pradeep Singh Rana, Mr. Ankit Rana, Mr.Abhishek Rana, Mr. Nitish Pande, Advocates, Mr. Kumar Piyush Pushkar, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Amit Chadha, APP for the State with SI Shiv Dev, P S EOW AND JUDGEMENT SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s dismissed vide Order dated 03.08.2019. The Petitioner in BAIL APPLN. 3750/2021 was declared absconder/proclaimed offender on 17.02.2020 and was arrested on 09.12.2020. Anticipatory bail application before this Court was dismissed as infructuous vide Order dated 16.08.2021. Bail application under Section 437 Cr.P.C. of Petitioner in BAIL APPLN. 3750/2021 was dismissed vide Order dated 05.07.2021. Bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. of Petitioner in BAIL APPLN. 3750/2021 was dismissed by the Sessions Court vide Order dated 23.09.2021. f. An anticipatory bail application was filed by the Petitioner in BAIL APPLN. 3921/2021 which was dismissed by the Ld. Trial Court vide Order dated 19.09.2019. The Petitioner in BAIL APPLN. 3921/2021 was declared absconder/proclaimed offender on 17.02.2020 and was arrested on 22.08.2020. Bail applications before the Ld. CMM and the Ld. ASJ, Rohini were dismissed vide Orders dated 11.09.2020 and 24.09.2020, respectively. After filing of chargesheet, yet again bail application before the Ld. CMM was dismissed vide Order dated 10.05.2021. 3. Mr. Pradeep Singh Rana, learned Counsel for Petitioner in BAIL APPLN. 3750/2021, submits that the Pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... total investors surpassing 900 and the amount cheated being Rs. 14 crores. She vehemently opposes the instant bail application, stating that the Petitioner in BAIL APPLN. 3750/2021 had previously been declared PO and never joined investigation despite several notices being issued to him. She submits that there are many statements of witnesses/complainants under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that specifically name the Petitioner and state that he took active part in the meetings/representations for inducement. 8. Ms. Chauhan submits that the Petitioner is a direct recipient of the cheated amount through his relatives and that Rs. 1.59 crores approximately were transferred from the account of the accused Company to the accounts of some known persons and then to the account of his son, Nitin Bhati, as well as directly from the account of the accused Company to his nephew, brothers and brother-in-law. She submits that there are other FIRs which have also been registered against the Petitioner, and that as charges are yet to be framed, it would be detrimental to the case to grant the Petitioner bail. 9. Mr. Kumar Piyush Pushkar, learned Counsel appearing for Petitioner in BAIL APPLN. 3921/2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmission of the offences. 13. The learned APP for the State submits that the Petitioner was the beneficiary of the cheated amount, and that a perusal of the bank replies indicate that he was also the authorized signatory of the bank accounts of the accused Company. He submits that the Petitioner took active part in the day-to-day affairs of the accused Company. He further reveals that the investigation had shown that the Petitioner had two PAN cards. Mr. Chadha also submits that there are various other FIRs which have been registered against the Petitioner and, therefore, he should not be granted bail. 14. Heard Mr. Pradeep Singh Rana and Mr. Kumar Piyush Pushkar, learned Counsels appearing for the Petitioners in BAIL APPLN.3750/2021 and BAIL APPLN.3921/2021, respectively, Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, learned APP for the State in BAIL APPLN. 3750/2021, Mr. Amit Chadha, learned APP for the State in BAIL APPLN. 3921/2021, and perused the material on record. 15. The chargesheet as well as the supplementary chargesheet has been filed. With regard to Petitioner in BAIL APPLN. 3750/2021, the chargesheet and the supplementary chargesheet have been filed under Sections 406/409/420/120-B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udulent misrepresentation, concealment of material facts and false assurances, the general public was induced to invest in the accused Company and part with their hard-earned money. It states that ingredients of Section 420/409/120-B IPC are easily made out against the Petitioner. 17. A perusal of the chargesheet, therefore, indicates that both the Petitioners were involved in the multi-person scam involving more than Rs. 200 crores from the inception of the same and that both were instrumental in misleading the public into investing in the scheme with no intention of returning the money. There are more than 900 complaints till date which have been made pertaining to the scam and the investigation has revealed that the Petitioners played an integral role, right from inducing the public to the siphoning off of the cheated money. Further, multiple other FIRs are also pending against both the Petitioners. The gravity of the offences is such that if the Petitioners are subsequently convicted, they will be liable to be sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. 18. However, gravity of the offence cannot be the sole ground to deny bail to the Petitioners. In Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only test or the factor : the other factor that also requires to be taken note of is the punishment that could be imposed after trial and conviction, both under the Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. Otherwise, if the former is the only test, we would not be balancing the constitutional rights but rather recalibrating the scales of justice . 25. The provisions of CrPC confer discretionary jurisdiction on criminal courts to grant bail to the accused pending trial or in appeal against convictions; since the jurisdiction is discretionary, it has to be exercised with great care and caution by balancing the valuable right of liberty of an individual and the interest of the society in general. In our view, the reasoning adopted by the learned District Judge, which is affirmed by the High Court, in our opinion, is a denial of the whole basis of our system of law and normal rule of bail system. It transcends respect for the requirement that a man shall be considered innocent until he is found guilty. If such power is recognised, then it may lead to chaotic situation and would jeopardise the personal liberty of an individual. ***** 46. We are conscious of the fact t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,000/- with two sureties of the like amount, one of them should be a relative of the petitioner, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court; b) The Memo of Parties shows that the petitioner in BAIL APPLN.3750/2021 is a resident of E-3, Road No.06 Gazipur Dairy Farms, Gazipur, Delhi-110092 and the petitioner in BAIL APPLN.3921/2021 is a resident of Flat No.125, Rose Apartment, Sector-18B, Dwarka, New Delhi. The petitioners are directed to reside at their respective address till further orders; c) The petitioners are directed to report to the concerned Police Stations thrice in a week i.e. on every Monday, Wednesday and Friday at 10:30 AM and they shall be released by 11:00 AM after completing all the formalities; d) The petitioners are directed to give all their mobile numbers to the Investigating Officer and keep them operational at all times; e) The petitioners shall not, directly or indirectly, tamper with evidence or try to influence the witnesses in any manner; f) In case it is established that the petitioners have tried to influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence, the bail granted to the petitioners shall stand cancelled forthwith. 22. It is made clear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
