Home Case Index All Cases Money Laundering Money Laundering + HC Money Laundering - 2020 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (2) TMI 1542 - HC - Money LaunderingGrant of bail - cheating and fraud - appreciation of evidence oral or documentary in detail - framing of charge or discharge of accused - HELD THAT:- It is evident that the applicants along with other co-accused have swindled an amount of ₹ 147, 67, 92,256/- by floating a private company in the name and style of Hablas Pvt. Ltd. They collected the money from the people of that area and undertook to double the same within one month. It is humanly impossible to double the money within one month by any sort of business. In this way, applicants along with other accused have criminally instigated the people to deposit the money by false promise of doubling the same within one month. Law is clear that detail of appreciation of documents, which were never filed before the Trial Court (Bail court) cannot be considered by the High Court for the first time in the bail application. Further, this Court, while dealing with the bail application, cannot appreciate the evidence oral or documentary in detail, which the Court is required to appreciate while framing of charge or discharge of accused. In case titled Y.S. JAGAN MOHAN REDDY VERSUS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [2013 (5) TMI 896 - SUPREME COURT], wherein the Supreme Court has held that bail in economic offences requires different approach by the Court. From a combined reading of Section 167 (2) and 173 (i) & (ii), it is apparent that if the police failed to submit a final report in terms of Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C within the statutory period of 90 days or 60 days as the case may be, the accused becomes entitled to bail as a matter of right. The contention of the learned State counsel was that in the present case, the charge-sheet submitted against the petitioners was not a preliminary charge-sheet and that whether said charge-sheet is a final report in terms of Section 173 (2) of the Cr.P.C has to be considered on the basis of the overall materials collected and produced before the court along with the report and not on the basis of an isolated statement or averment made in the charge-sheet. In the present case, apparently on the basis of FIR lodged by the informant, police completed the investigation and initially submitted the charge sheet against the petitioners and others, and having considered the broad spectrum of the conspiracy involved in the case, police has continued with further investigation - While granting or refusing bail, the Court has to see the nature of accusation, gravity of the offence for which the accused have been found involved and impact of granting bail on general public. The argument that investigation is complete and nothing is required from applicants, is also not sustainable, because it may be a ground for consideration of bail but not an exclusive ground to grant bail. The applicants along with other accused have been found involved in swindling of huge amount of ₹ 147,67,92,256/- of innocent persons of locality on the promise of doubling the same within one month. These applications are found to be without any merit - Application dismissed.
|