Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2021 (6) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (6) TMI 477 - HC - Indian LawsValidity of grant of Bail - Siphoning of funds by respondent No.2 promoter, before they ceased to be in control over the complainant-company - foremost plea put-forth by petitioner is that the trial court while granting bail to respondent No.2, has not taken into consideration the directions issued by this Court in its right perspective - HELD THAT:- The learned trial court had heard the parties at length, noted their contentions and thereafter, held that accused is in custody for one year and four months and he cannot be kept in custody for infinite time; that investigation is complete and prosecution has to clarify why accused should be kept in continued custody and also that tampering of evidence exists in every case till the length of the trial - No doubt at the time of grant of bail, the court is not required to go into the merits of the prosecution case and meticulous observations on the material placed on record are not required to be made, but the court is expected to judiciously apply its mind as to whether a prima facie case against the accused is made out and his continued detention in judicial custody would serve any purpose. In the impugned order, 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 ₹ 2400 crores including interest has been siphoned off at the behest of respondent No.2 and his brother Malvinder Mohan Singh by diverting it through various financial transactions, by granting loan to the shell companies, of whom they were the Directors or Promoters or beneficiary in interest - the learned trial court has failed to take note of the fact that offences alleged are serious in nature and rather than taking into account the factors that respondent No.2 is behind bars for more than one year and that investigation is complete, however, should have borne in mind the peculiarity of fraud and conspiracy involved in this case and refrained itself from passing a blanket order releasing respondent No.2 on bail. No doubt on the premise that investigation is complete and accused is behind bars for some time and that trial shall take time, bail can be granted but only when the offences alleged are of lesser magnitude. However, the trial court by rendering such an opinion in the present case, lost sight of the enormity of the offence alleged against respondent No.2. It is not disputed that after passing the impugned order dated 03.03.2021, considering the seriousness and gravity of the offence, learned court of Sessions dismissed the bail application of Malvinder Mohan Singh vide order dated 01.04.2021, who has been ascribed a similar role in the present case - the court below had no ground to grant bail to the respondent No.2 vide its impugned order dated 03.03.2021, as the role of respondent No.2 is not less than above named accused by any stretch of imagination. The bail granted to respondent No.2 in this FIR case by the trial court is also set aside - Petition allowed.
|