TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Court denies bail in economic offenses case, citing risk of evidence tampering and need for custody.</h1> The court denied the petitioner's request for bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. and Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C., as well as rejected the claim for statutory ... Seeking grant of Regular Bail - siphoning off of the funds - allegation of cheating a large number of innocent depositors and misappropriating their hard-earned money - scheduled offence or not - offences punishable under Sections 406, 408, 420 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the material available on record, admittedly, earlier, the case has been registered against this petitioner in Cr. No. 185/2017 for the offences punishable under Section 406, 408, 420 of IPC by the KSRUCS and the same has been investigated and charge-sheet also filed and bail was granted. It is also important to note that an application is filed under Section 167 of Cr.P.C. before the Trial Court and he was remanded to the custody and he has been in custody from January, 2022. It is also important to note that invoked the offence punishable under PML Act wherein an allegation is made that this petitioner being the Chairman of the KSRUCS, misappropriated the amount of Rs. 250 to 255 crore. It is also important to note that the statement of the petitioner was also recorded and admitted the fact that he had purchased the bungalow and car and also it is the case of the prosecution that he had indulged in siphoning off the amount of the depositors money. The brief summary of result of investigation under Section 50(3) of PML Act is also mentioned in paragraph 8 acquiring the properties in the name of his family members i.e., wife, son and also in the name of the car driver and also his friend and so also in the name of the Manager of KSRUCS and had indulged in transferring the property in the name of Ramathulla. The other contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is entitled for bail since the complaint was filed on 07.02.2022 and 60 days has been lapsed cannot be accepted at this juncture when the investigation is still going on and the specific allegations are made that further investigation is pending and hence, the question of invoking Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. at this stage cannot be looked into and no such application is filed before the Trial Court and for the first time, raised said ground before this Court and hence, the petitioner is not entitled for the bail on the said ground and the High Court of Hyderabad remanded the matter for consideration when an application is filed under Section 167 of Cr.P.C. and the same is not a scenario herein and no specific date is found in the complaint. The bail petition is rejected. Issues Involved:1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.2. Whether the petitioner can claim statutory bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C.3. The applicability of Section 24 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PML Act) regarding the presumption of guilt.4. The relevance of attached properties and the petitioner's passport being impounded.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Entitlement to Regular Bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.:The petitioner sought regular bail in Crime No. 185/2017 for offences under Sections 406, 408, 420 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the PML Act. The petitioner argued that the material did not suggest guilt under the PML Act, emphasizing previous bail granted for IPC offences, cooperation in the investigation, health issues, and efforts to refund depositors. The prosecution countered by highlighting the misappropriation of Rs. 281.14 crores, non-refund of depositors' money, and the petitioner's purchase of properties and luxury items without substantiating income sources. The court noted the gravity of the offences, the ongoing investigation, and the prima facie evidence of fraud, concluding that the petitioner had not made out any ground for bail.2. Claim for Statutory Bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C.:The petitioner contended entitlement to statutory bail, referencing judgments from the High Court of Hyderabad and the Apex Court, which emphasized judicial functions in remand applications and the importance of personal liberty when properties are attached and passports impounded. However, the court found that the investigation was ongoing, and no specific application under Section 167(2) was filed before the Trial Court. The court held that the petitioner could not invoke Section 167(2) at this stage, as the investigation was still in progress, and the ground was raised for the first time before the High Court.3. Applicability of Section 24 of the PML Act:The prosecution argued that under Section 24 of the PML Act, the burden of proof lies on the petitioner to disprove the presumption of guilt. The court agreed, noting the petitioner's failure to provide satisfactory replies during the investigation and the necessity of judicial custody to prevent the disposal of proceeds of crime. The court emphasized the seriousness of economic offences involving significant investor losses and deep-rooted conspiracy, referencing judgments that upheld the reversal of the burden of proof and the presumption of guilt.4. Relevance of Attached Properties and Impounded Passport:The petitioner argued that the attachment of properties and impounding of the passport negated the risk of absconding, citing judgments that granted bail under similar conditions. However, the court noted that only Rs. 31 crore worth of properties were attached against the misappropriated amount of Rs. 250 crore. The court found that the attachment did not justify bail, given the substantial amount yet to be refunded and the risk of tampering with evidence. The court referenced judgments emphasizing the need to view economic offences seriously and the potential for accused individuals to use unlawful tactics if released on bail.Conclusion:The court, considering the gravity of the offences, the ongoing investigation, the substantial amount involved, and the presumption of guilt under the PML Act, rejected the bail petition. The court held that the petitioner had not made out any grounds for bail and emphasized the necessity of judicial custody to prevent further misappropriation and ensure the integrity of the investigation.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
