On 14th June, a bench of the Delhi High Court consisting of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait while setting aside a bail order granted by the trial court observed that the learned trial court had failed to take note of the fact that offences alleged are serious in nature and rather than taking into account the factors that accused is behind bars for more than one year and that investigation is complete, the court should have borne in mind the peculiarity of fraud and conspiracy involved in this case and refrained itself from passing a blanket order releasing the accused on bail.

Facts of the case:

Petitioner, a non-banking financial company, Religare Finvest Limited was aggrieved by the order vide which respondent had been granted bail passed by the learned trial court. The charges against the respondents are of the nature of cheating, fraud and criminal breach of trust. The complainant company suffered poor financial condition to a large extent on account of wilful defaults on significant unsecured loans. The complainant-company believe that the illegal transactions were caused by respondent No.2 in connivance with his brother- Malvinder Mohan Singh so as to siphon away the funds of the company before they ceased to be in control over the complainant-company.

Submission of the petitioner:

The counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted the following contentions:

  1. It was submitted that on the day of passing the impugned order, the learned trial court had dismissed bail application of co-accused Rajender Prasad Aggarwal on the grounds of gravity and seriousness of the offence, but had erroneously allowed bail application of respondent No.2.
  2. It was also pointed out that the ground that the conduct and behaviour of respondent No.2 itself disentitles him to the benefit of bail as he had smuggled a mobile phone while in custody of the Enforcement Directorate.
  3. It was also stated that the charge sheets also record that the Directors of shell were drawing salary at the end of the financial year for signing the documents of the company.
  4. It was also contended that that learned Sessions Judge has consciously not taken into consideration the merits of the case and the order releasing respondent No.2 on bail is contrary to the law.

Submissions of the respondent:

The following submissions have been made on behalf of the respondent:

  1. The counsel appearing for respondent No.2 supported the impugned order and submitted that the trial court was well cognizant of the merits of the case, which have been noted at length in the impugned order and so, it does not suffer from any illegality or perversity.
  2. It was also submitted that that the learned trial court had correctly taken note of the fact that once supplementary charge sheet had been filed and no further investigation is required and the respondent’s detention is not necessary and he qualifies the triple test of bail.
  3. It was also stated that if respondent no. 2 continues to be behind bars, he will not be able to prepare his defence in this case and other cases.
  4. It was contended that State had failed to show the necessity for continued incarceration of respondent No.2 and since the trial is not likely to conclude in near future, the present petition deserved to be dismissed.

Observation and judgement of court:

The Hon’ble bench of the Delhi High Court observed the following:

  1. At the time of grant of bail the Court has also to bear in mind the gravity and seriousness of the offence alleged and the punishment prescribed in respect thereof.
  2. The learned trial court has recorded reasons for granting bail to respondent No. 2, but has failed to consider that the present FIR case pertains to a serious economic offence of high magnitude, where large amount of approximately Rs.2400 crores including interest has been siphoned off at the behest of respondent No.2 and his brother by diverting it through various financial transactions.
  3. The learned trial court has failed to take note of the fact bail that offences alleged are serious in nature and bail can be granted but only when the offences alleged are of lesser magnitude.
  4. The grant of bail in a case involving cheating, criminal breach of interest by an agent of such a large magnitude of money, affecting a very large number of people would also have an adverse impact not only on the progress of the case but also on the trust of the criminal justice system that people repose.

Bearing the factual matrix of the case the bail order made by the trial court was set aside.

Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com

Share this Document :

Picture Source :

 
Anusree Deb