The Delhi High Court while granting bail to the Accused opined that solely on the ground that a grave economic offence is recorded in the charge sheet against the Accused, bail cannot be denied. It was also observed that the Accused in the present case cooperated during the investigation, and did not flee, investigation qua Accused has been completed and there are no past criminal records.
Brief Facts:
The FIR in the present case was registered after the Hon’ble Supreme Court issued an order in the matter of M/s PGF Ltd. V. Union of India & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 6572 of 2004). The first charge sheet that was filed did not include the Petitioner’s name but a reference was made to him. It was submitted that the Petitioner has been cooperating with the CBI and it was in the supplementary charge sheet that the name of the Petitioner was mentioned.
The supplementary charge sheet was filed without arresting the Petitioner. Thereafter, Petitioner was summoned and after appearing in the Court, the Petitioner moved a bail application. However, his bail application was rejected and subsequently, the Petitioner was taken into judicial custody and has been in judicial custody since then.
The present Application is filed under Section 439 read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “CRPC”).
Contentions of the Petitioner:
It was contended that there has been no incriminating evidence against the Petitioner. It was argued that Petitioner is a government servant and is not connected with any forged sale deed. The Petitioner was not a party to the sale deed in any capacity whatsoever. There was no monetary benefit received by the Petitioner and there is nothing that links the Petitioner with the accused companies. It was further contended that the main accused in the matter has already been given bail and other co-accused who allegedly have played a larger role have also been given bail. It was submitted that the Petitioner is a family person with deep roots in the society; therefore, there are no chances he would flee.
Contentions of the Respondent:
It was argued that the case relates to a Ponzi scheme whereby money to the tune of Rs. 5.4 crores of small investors have been cheated. The Petitioner has played an instrumental role by preparing fake sale deeds of non-agriculture land; therefore, bail should not be granted to him. It was contended that the Petitioner was arrested as evidence against him came to light during the investigation. It was further argued that the bail applications of other accused who have been released on Bail are being challenged by CBI and hence, pending.
Observations of the Court:
It was noted that two companies namely PACL and PGF were alleged to have floated a Collective Investment Scheme without following SEBI regulations. Huge funds were raised from investors and documents were created to show a reverse sale of land by investors to the company. The allegation against Petitioner is that he created fake sale deeds and hence, played a large role in the entire bogus scheme.
The High Court further observed that solely on the ground that a grave economic offence is recorded in the charge sheet against the Accused, bail cannot be denied. It was noted that the Petitioner in the present case has cooperated during the investigation, did not flee, investigation qua Petitioner has been completed and there are no past criminal records.
The decision of the Court:
Based on the above-mentioned reasons, the Delhi High Court granted bail to the Petitioner and accordingly, disposed of the Application.
Case Title: Brajendra Singh Bhadouriya v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Coram: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Poonam A. Bamba
Case No.: BAIL APPLN. 2033/2022
Advocates for Petitioner: Advs. Mr. Mohit Mathur, Mr. C.M Patel, Mr. Sarvendra Singh, Mr. Rohini Prasad Tiwari
Advocates for Respondent: Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, Special PP, Mr. Kushagra Kumar
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
