TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 119X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmitted that it was not necessary to disclose about the payments received by the respondents on behalf of Usha Kaal Communication Ltd. The respondents Raj Hiremath and Savita Raj Hiremath allegedly cheated the complainant and misappropriated the amount to the extent of Rs. 1 crore provided by the complainant for direction of the film. The respondents are not disputing the finance to the tune of Rs. 2.95 crores by the complainant and their statement of account reflect the manner and the extent to which the amount provided was allegedly misappropriated. Admittedly nothing has been refunded to the petitioners till date nor the respondents are ready to refund even partially to the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, continues to enjoy the fruits of their crime. Such persons who continue to reap the benefit of their crime after committing the offence of personal gain and preceded by calculated design need to be put under some restriction by imposing a reasonable condition so that it does not send a wrong message to the potential offenders that even after committing the crime, they can continue to enjoy the ill-gotten wealth. The Court may impose conditions as specified under Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d pursuant to that, complainant transferred Rs. 2.95 Crores in the account of TFEPL. Subsequently, on coming to know that the respondents Raj Hiremath and Savita Raj Hiremath have misappropriated the amount and had got executed agreements with various artists showing inflated amount and expenses incurred while producing the film, on their refusal to divulge the details of the financial dealings/payments/expenses incurred out of the funds provided by the complainant, FIR was got registered. 2. After registration of the FIR, both the respondents applied for grant of anticipatory bail claiming it to be a case of alleged breach of promise which could invite only civil liability. 3. Before the learned ASJ, the State filed the status report wherein it was mentioned that during the course of investigation, it has been found that amount of Rs. 2,95,75,165/- was credited in favour of TFEPL by TGEL. The fund amounting to Rs. 2.40 crores were also credited in the bank account of TFEPL which was opened on 24-6-2009. In another bank account of TFEPL which was already in operation, funds amounting to Rs. 55 lacs were also credited. It was further revealed during investigation that responde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t/accused is that applicant/accused failed to maintain his promise and could not fulfil his part of obligation as was agreed upon between the parties. It is not the case even of the prosecution that the applicant/accused had not taken any step towards fulfilment of his commitment. The allegations are only to the effect that the targets could not be met by the specified dates. Keeping in view the totality of circumstances, in the event of arrest IO/arresting officer is directed to release the applicant/accused on bail on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount. The applicant/accused is directed to cooperate in the investigation of the case. That he shall not intermediate any witness and shall not remove, destroy or temper with any evidence. Ordered accordingly. Vide impugned order dated 23-11-2011, anticipatory bail was also granted to Savita Raj Hiremath by learned ASJ observing as under :- The main allegation against the applicant/accused is that applicant/accused failed to maintain her promise and could not fulfil her part of obligation as was agreed upon between the parties. It is not the case even of the prosecution that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g of the complainant. It has been submitted that bail can be cancelled only in the circumstances when extremely cogent and overwhelming circumstance has been shown like interference in course of administration of justice/abuse of concessions granted are required to cancel a bail order. It has been further submitted that in case there is no interference in course of administration of justice by the accused, there can be no cancellation of anticipatory bail. It has also been submitted that monetary condition on the respondents also cannot be imposed by the Court learned counsel for the respondents submitted that even Apex Court had held such types of directions by the High Court like requiring the husband to pay maintenance to the wife while granting anticipatory bail, as not considered proper. It has been further submitted that unnecessary conditions cannot be imposed by the Court while granting anticipatory bail as such conditions have the effect of defeating the very purpose. Reliance has been placed on Munish Bhasin Ors. v. State, (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) Anr., AIR 2009 SC 2072 wherein the Apex Court has considered the direction by High Court requiring the petitioner to pay ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has allegedly been misappropriated by them for personal use and has already been spent by them. 13. So far as the contention of the petitioner praying for cancellation of bail is concerned, I find that in the proceedings dated 31-1-2012 in Crl. M.C. No. 4137/2011, learned counsel for the petitioner conceded before the Court that he is not interested to litigate in the Courts of law, rather petitioner is interested either to get the money released or to get the rights of the film. Thereafter the talks for settlement were also going on wherein the complainant gave three proposals i.e. (a) Return of amount of Rs. 2.95 crores given with some interest; or (b) Transfer of Movie Rights to the complainant; or (c) Actual payments made to various parties/vendors with supporting documents/affidavits in compliance with clauses 2.3, 3.2 and 3.4 with the balance to be paid directly to the said parties/vendors by the complainant so that Movie is completed , which were not acceptable to the respondents/accused. In the circumstances, I find that cancellation of bail is not the right course of action when the complainant himself seems to be more interested in the return of his money either in ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondents was also questioned as to whether at any point of time in the Memorandum of Understanding, it was disclosed to the complainant that behind the legal entity Usha Kaal Communication Ltd., the real face was that of the respondents who received the money in the name of that company, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that it was not necessary to disclose about the payments received by the respondents on behalf of Usha Kaal Communication Ltd. 16. Learned ASJ committed a grave error in considering this case only to be a case of failure to maintain the promise and non-fulfilment of their part of obligation as was agreed upon between the parties. As per the FIR, the respondents namely Raj Hiremath and Savita Raj Hiremath allegedly cheated the complainant and misappropriated an amount of about Rs. 1 crore by different modes. 17. In the case Lalit Goel v. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2007 (3) JCC 2282 [2007 (216) E.L.T. 673 (Del.)], this Court, while dealing with bail application in a case of Customs Act, observed as under :- The economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. Noticing ever ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lal v. State of Gujarat, 2008 (7) SCC 591, which was a case involving cheating and forgery in respect of funds of a bank, the Supreme Court even while granting bail on verified medical grounds, imposed a condition that he would deposit a sum of Rs. 40 lakhs with the bank in four monthly instalments. This was despite the fact that in the case before the Hon ble Supreme Court, there were as many as 49 accused and each one of them had already been enlarged on bail and that included the Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Managing Director, 11 other Directors of the bank and the case of the appellant, Ex. Vice-Chairman of the bank, was that he had resigned in the year 1999, whereas the FIR was registered in the year 2002. 21. The reliance placed by learned counsel for the respondent in this regard on Munish Bhasin Ors. v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) Anr. (supra) is of no help to the respondents as in that case the dispute was between husband and wife and when the husband applied for anticipatory bail, the High Court required him to pay maintenance to his wife which was considered to be not proper. 22. The respondents Raj Hiremath and Savita Raj Hiremath allegedly cheated the complaina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
