Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the applicants were entitled to bail in connection with offences alleged under the Indian Penal Code and the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999, and if so, on what terms and conditions.
Analysis: The Court held that pre-trial custody is not punitive and bail cannot be refused merely to set an example or to create pressure for recovery of investors' money. The Court found no substantiated basis for the claim that the applicants' custodial presence was necessary for further investigation, noting that investigation had substantially progressed and that the applicants could be required to attend the investigating officer without being kept in custody. The Court also found no material to show that the applicants were likely to flee from justice or tamper with evidence. Balancing the need to protect depositors with the applicants' right to liberty, the Court considered the substantial cash already deposited and the undertaking to make further monthly payments while framing protective conditions for release.
Conclusion: Bail was granted. The applicants were directed to be released on furnishing a substantial personal bond and cash security, to cooperate with investigation, to surrender and retain passports as directed, and not to leave the country or Bombay beyond the stipulated limits without permission or intimation.