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>Denial of Bail Due to Financial Fraud Allegations</h1> <h3>ANISH JANGRA Versus STATE OF HARYANA</h3> ANISH JANGRA Versus STATE OF HARYANA - 2020 (374) E.L.T. 569 (P & H) Issues Involved:1. Grant of bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. Allegations of financial fraud and conspiracy under multiple sections of IPC and special acts.3. Petitioner’s role and complicity in the alleged scam.4. Ongoing investigation and its impact on the bail decision.5. Financial implications and public interest considerations.Detailed Analysis:1. Grant of Bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:The petitioner sought bail pending trial under Section 439 of the CrPC. The court noted that the petitioner had been in custody since 30-3-2019, and despite the investigation being completed and the challan presented, charges had not yet been framed. The petitioner argued that he was merely an investor and not a promoter or director of the company, claiming victimization by the prosecution.2. Allegations of Financial Fraud and Conspiracy:The allegations against the petitioner involved duping a large number of people through a chit fund scheme run by Future Maker Life Care Pvt. Ltd., amounting to over Rs. 2956 crores. The FIR included charges under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the IPC, Sections 4, 5, 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, and Section 3(2) of the Haryana Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishment) Act, 2013.3. Petitioner’s Role and Complicity in the Alleged Scam:The prosecution and the complainant contended that the petitioner was a chief promoter and planner of the company, actively involved in inducing the public to deposit money without proper licenses. Evidence included statements, bank records, and the petitioner's disclosure about purchasing properties with ill-gotten money. The court found substantial material indicating the petitioner’s active role in the conspiracy.4. Ongoing Investigation and Its Impact on the Bail Decision:The court observed that the investigation was still ongoing, with 10 out of 31 accused evading arrest. The prosecution argued that releasing the petitioner could hamper the investigation, especially as the petitioner and co-accused were allegedly misleading the public through social media.5. Financial Implications and Public Interest Considerations:The court highlighted the significant financial fraud involved, noting that the company had accumulated over Rs. 2956 crores within three years of its incorporation with a share capital of Rs. 10 lakh. The court emphasized the need for thorough investigation to bring all wrongdoers to justice and protect the interests of a large number of victims.Conclusion:The court concluded that granting bail to the petitioner would be detrimental to the ongoing investigation and could prejudice the prosecution’s case. Given the magnitude of the financial fraud and the petitioner’s alleged involvement, the court dismissed the bail petition to safeguard public interest and ensure justice for the victims.
TaxTMI 