2016 (4) TMI 1457 - HC - Companies Law

Fraud accused gets regular bail after 9 years in custody without charges being framed

SANJAY RAGHUNATHPRASHAD GUPTA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Gujarat HC granted regular bail to an applicant charged with fraud and misappropriation of huge amounts as Chairman of MEGA company. The court noted ... Seeking release on Regular Bail - Fraud - misappropriation of huge amount of money - HELD THAT:- The undisputed facts is that the applicant was Chairman of MEGA and was responsible for the transaction being a head of the Company. However, the investigation is over and time was granted to the State Government for further investigation which has also been completed and supplementary charge-sheet has been submitted on 27.1.2016. In the case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, [2011 (11) TMI 537 - SUPREME COURT] the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with most important judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court itself and has released the accused who were facing charges for 2G Spectrum scam wherein public exchequer has lost thousands of crores of rupees. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has, after considering the decisions of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, [2005 (1) TMI 704 - SUPREME COURT], Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor, [1977 (12) TMI 143 - SUPREME COURT], Vaman Narain Ghiya v. State of Rajasthan, [2008 (12) TMI 446 - SUPREME COURT], State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi, [2005 (9) TMI 659 - SUPREME COURT] has ultimately held that the applicant can be released on bail by imposing appropriate conditions. It is pertinent to note that the applicant is behind bar since 14.5.2015 and investigation is over. The Court has not even framed charge in the matter. There are about 12 accused and about 100 witnesses and there is voluminous record of documents which are relied upon by the prosecution. It is also pertinent to note that the applicant was released on temporary bail and has surrendered in Jail in time. It is not the case that he has ever tried to misuse the liberty granted to him. It is opined that this is not a heinous crime wherein there is an apprehension that he may tamper with the prosecution witnesses or is danger to the Society at large. The case is based on documentary evidences which is required to be proved by the prosecution at the time of trial. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the papers of investigation and charge-sheet and supplementary charge-sheet, the application requires consideration. Hence, the application is allowed and the applicant is ordered to be released on bail subject to the conditions imposed. Bail application allowed. Issues Involved:1. Successive bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.2. Allegations of fraud and misappropriation of funds by the accused.3. Examination of the evidence and statements of witnesses.4. Consideration of the applicant's past conduct and potential to tamper with evidence.5. Legal precedents and their applicability to the case.6. Conditions for granting bail.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Successive Bail Application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:The applicant sought regular bail in connection with FIR No.3 of 2015 registered with CID Crime Gandhinagar Zone Police Station for offences under Sections 409, 418, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(1)(c), d(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.2. Allegations of Fraud and Misappropriation of Funds by the Accused:The FIR alleged that the accused, including the applicant, committed fraud and misappropriated Rs.113.22 Crores by creating forged documents and making payments to companies for work not done. The applicant, an ex-IAS officer and former Chairman of MEGA, was implicated in authorizing these transactions.3. Examination of the Evidence and Statements of Witnesses:The prosecution presented statements from various witnesses, including Chitrang Mukeshbhai Pandya, Ramesh Kantibhai Makwana, and others, indicating cash transactions and bogus invoices. The technical unit's report suggested significant discrepancies in the excavation work, leading to the alleged misappropriation.4. Consideration of the Applicant's Past Conduct and Potential to Tamper with Evidence:The applicant argued that the case was based on documentary evidence, and there was no risk of tampering. He highlighted his cooperation during temporary bail periods and the lack of any allegations of misuse of liberty. The prosecution, however, contended that the applicant was the 'kingpin' of the scam and had orchestrated the fraud using his position and influence.5. Legal Precedents and Their Applicability to the Case:The applicant's counsel cited the Supreme Court's decision in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, emphasizing that pre-trial detention should not be indefinite. The prosecution referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Dr. Vinod Bhandari v. State of Madhya Pradesh, which denied bail in a case involving large-scale corruption and societal impact.6. Conditions for Granting Bail:The court considered the applicant's prolonged detention (since May 2015), the completion of the investigation, and the voluminous documentary evidence. The court decided to grant bail with stringent conditions, including a bond of Rs.5,00,000, surrendering the passport, marking presence at the police station, and depositing Rs.1 Crore in installments.Conclusion:The court allowed the bail application, emphasizing that the trial could take a long time due to the number of accused and witnesses. The court imposed specific conditions to ensure the applicant's compliance and prevent any potential tampering with evidence. The decision was guided by the principles laid down in previous judgments, balancing the seriousness of the allegations with the applicant's right to liberty.