Concurrent bail jurisdiction upheld, but bail refused in a serious economic offence despite parity and gender-based grounds.

Concurrent jurisdiction under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code means a pending bail application before the High Court does not become non-maintainable merely because a charge-sheet is filed during its pendency; the Court may consider the charge-sheet and accompanying materials while deciding bail. On merits, bail was refused because prima facie material linked the accused to the affairs of the group and to transfers into her personal account, the asserted use of funds was unsupported, parity did not apply because the co-accused stood on a different footing, and the seriousness of the alleged economic offence and continuing investigation outweighed reliance on gender-based grounds.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 remained maintainable before the High Court after submission of charge-sheet during its pendency without first approaching the court below again; (ii) Whether the petitioner was entitled to bail on merits, including on the grounds of parity, being a woman, and the status of investigation in a large economic offence.

Issue (i): Whether a bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 remained maintainable before the High Court after submission of charge-sheet during its pendency without first approaching the court below again.

Analysis: The High Court held that the Sessions Court and the High Court exercise concurrent jurisdiction under Section 439, and that a litigant is not compelled to withdraw a pending bail application merely because the charge-sheet is filed during its pendency. The Court noted that the High Court can consider the fact of filing of the charge-sheet and the materials therein while deciding the bail request on merits. Denial of adjudication on that ground alone was found inconsistent with the applicant's right to seek consideration of liberty.

Conclusion: The bail application was held maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner was entitled to bail on merits, including on the grounds of parity, being a woman, and the status of investigation in a large economic offence.

Analysis: The Court found that the petitioner was prima facie shown to be a Director connected with the affairs of the AT Group and that substantial amounts had been transferred to her personal account. The plea that the money was used for production of television serials was found unsupported by the record. The Court further held that the petitioner stood on a different footing from the co-accused who had earlier obtained bail, so parity was not applicable. Referring to the gravity of the alleged economic offences, the continuing investigation, the possibility of further links emerging, and the larger public interest involved, the Court held that the woman proviso did not compel release where the surrounding circumstances weighed against bail.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to bail.

Final Conclusion: The Court declined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, holding that the seriousness of the alleged economic offences, the prima facie materials, and the need for further investigation outweighed the grounds urged on her behalf.

Ratio Decidendi: In a serious economic offence with continuing investigation and prima facie material indicating involvement, bail may be refused despite parity claims and the accused's gender where the interests of justice and society require custodial detention.

---