TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Bail Granted in Economic Offences Case: Conditions Imposed for Fair Trial</h1> <h3>D.K. Sethi Versus Central Bureau of Investigation</h3> D.K. Sethi Versus Central Bureau of Investigation - TMI Issues Involved:1. False Implication and Role of Petitioner2. Seriousness of Offence and Allegations3. Examination of Evidence and Procedures4. Legal Precedents and Principles for Granting Bail5. Conditions for Granting BailDetailed Analysis:1. False Implication and Role of Petitioner:The petitioner, D.K. Sethi, claimed false implication, arguing that he had not played any role in the alleged crime. His name was not mentioned in the FIR, and his role was similar to that of co-accused S.K. Sinha, who was found innocent. The petitioner joined as Chief Manager in 2010, and all procedures for credit facilities were followed transparently, including independent scrutiny and audits. The petitioner asserted that no deviation from bank norms occurred and that the credit facilities were sanctioned by the Head Office. He emphasized his unblemished service record and readiness to cooperate with court proceedings.2. Seriousness of Offence and Allegations:The prosecution opposed the bail, highlighting the seriousness of the offence. It was alleged that the petitioner failed to obtain necessary invoices, leading to the release of loan amounts to bogus firms, causing wrongful loss to the bank. Specific allegations were made against the petitioner and other co-accused, indicating a criminal conspiracy and submission of false documents.3. Examination of Evidence and Procedures:The court examined the FIR and other documents, noting that there was no specific attribution of role to the petitioner. The valuation of property and independent scrutiny by auditors were conducted as per bank policy. The complainant bank had also filed a civil suit for recovery of dues, and the petitioner, a retired bank officer, had cooperated with the investigation. Given the number of accused and witnesses, the trial was expected to take a long time, and keeping the petitioner in custody was deemed unnecessary.4. Legal Precedents and Principles for Granting Bail:The court referred to several legal precedents, including the landmark decision in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, which emphasized that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused at trial, not to punish them pre-conviction. The court also considered judgments that highlighted the importance of personal liberty and the principle that pre-conviction detention should be avoided unless necessary to secure attendance at trial or prevent tampering with evidence. The court noted that economic offences, while serious, do not automatically justify refusal of bail.5. Conditions for Granting Bail:The court, without commenting on the merits of the case, granted bail to the petitioner, considering his long custody period, the presentation of the challan, and the fact that the offences were triable by a Magistrate. The bail was granted subject to conditions:- The petitioner must furnish a personal bond of Rs. 5 lakhs with sureties.- Surrender his passport if not already seized.- Not leave the country without court permission.- Not tamper with evidence or create hurdles in the investigation or trial.- Any other conditions imposed by the trial court.The court's decision was guided by the principles of personal liberty, the need for a fair trial, and the judicial discretion exercised in granting bail.
TaxTMI 