2016 (8) TMI 1603 - HC - Indian Laws

Bail denied in economic offence case involving conspiracy to divert investor funds through shell companies

Indu Dewan Versus Republic of India (C.B.I.)

HC dismissed bail application in economic offence case involving conspiracy and fund diversion. Petitioner, as authorized signatory of company, allegedly ... Seeking grant of bail u/s 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner read with Section 437(1) of Cr.P.C. - conspiracy - diversion of funds - it is alleged that at the time of arrest the petitioner was neither informed of the reasons of arrest nor handed over a copy of the arrest memo as required by law, nor her kin was informed - shifting of illegal action of forgery - HELD THAT:- The consideration of bail in economic offences should not be in the same footing as of other offences. Moreover, the parameters of the bail as contained in the decision of Neeru Yadav [2014 (12) TMI 1347 - SUPREME COURT] are the guiding force to consider the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. In the series of cases by CBI where the magnitude of the economic loss to the society and the individual have no magnitude but indefinite. The Court should be cautious in granting bail. It is true that liberty of a person must be visualized where the concept of bail is discussed. In this regard, the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court cannot be lost sight of. It is the allegation of the CBI that present petitioner having made conspiracy with principal accused Pradeep Kumar Sethy diversified the funds from A.T. Group of Companies to the fund of M/s. Systematix Entertainment & Media Pvt. Ltd. which later converted to A.T. Food Mart Pvt. Ltd. Subsequently money was siphoned off to her, her sister and her husband's personal account. The CBI produced the copies of the statements recorded and documents seized in support of their contentions. It appears that crores of rupees have been collected by A.T. Group of Companies from the gullible investors with the assurance to return the money with double interest and to allot the plots in their favour. But the poor people neither got back their invested money nor got any plot. From the statements of witnesses filed before this Court, it is clear that the present petitioner being authorized signatory of M/s. A.T. Food Mart Ltd. in conspiracy with the principal accused person Pradeep Kumar Sethy transferred the account from such A.T. Group of Companies to produce serial 'Command Force' and proceeds of such serials have been siphoned off through A.T. Food Mart Pvt. Ltd. to her account, account of her sister and her husband's account. Thus, the money of gullible depositors under well planned has been trailed to the account of the present petitioner. It is also revealed from the materials that petitioner and co-accused Preeti Bhatia have formed a Company, namely, M/s. Candyfloss Media and Entertainment and amount of Rs. 26,30,000/- has been transferred from A.T. Food Mart Pvt. Ltd. to such Company of petitioner and her sister - From the materials, it cannot be said that there is no prima facie case against her at present in respect of economic offences. Thus, in economic offences the Court cannot sit as a silent spectator but must rise to the occasion to consider the effect of such offence upon the society. Since the present petitioner is actively involved in economic offences as delineated above, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that her involvement is not well conceived, is untenable. Thus, it is revealed that the petitioner being the authorized signatory of A.T. Food Mart Pvt. Ltd. has trailed the money to her personal account and other account and also has falsely projected her as the Director of A.T. Group of Companies (M/s. Systematix Entertainment & Media Pvt. Ltd.) and opened the account at State Bank of India by forging the signatures of co-accused Pradeep Kumar Sethy & Jyotiprakash Joyprakash which is undoubtedly a serious offence on her part In toto this Court is of the opinion that for the larger interest of the public and society, the petitioner in such economic offences of serious consequences deserves no sympathy. Even if she is a woman claiming benefit of gender justice but she claims to be film producer and her conduct showing serious thwart to society, this Court is loath to consider her case for bail. Bail application dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Application for bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.2. Allegations of economic offences and conspiracy.3. Evaluation of prima facie case and evidence.4. Consideration of bail in economic offences.5. Humanitarian grounds for bail.6. Parity with co-accused granted bail.7. Delay in trial due to non-functioning of trial court.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Application for Bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.:The petitioner filed an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for bail, which was previously rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Khurda. The petitioner argued that she cooperated with the investigation and was not informed of the reasons for her arrest or provided with an arrest memo.2. Allegations of Economic Offences and Conspiracy:The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) alleged that the petitioner, in conspiracy with co-accused, diverted funds from M/s. Artha Tatwa Group of Companies (A.T. Group) to her personal accounts and those of her relatives. The petitioner was accused of forgery, cheating, and misappropriation of funds collected from gullible depositors by the A.T. Group.3. Evaluation of Prima Facie Case and Evidence:The court discussed the principles of law on regular bail, emphasizing that detailed examination of evidence is not required at the bail stage. The CBI presented evidence including statements and documents showing the petitioner's involvement in the diversion of funds. The court found a prima facie case against the petitioner, noting her role in siphoning funds to personal accounts and forging signatures to open bank accounts.4. Consideration of Bail in Economic Offences:The court referred to various judgments highlighting that economic offences, due to their grave impact on society, require a different approach in bail considerations. The court emphasized the need to balance personal liberty with societal interests, especially in cases involving deep-rooted conspiracies and significant public fund losses.5. Humanitarian Grounds for Bail:The petitioner argued for bail on humanitarian grounds, citing her health issues, the illness of her parents, and the educational needs of her children. The court, however, found these grounds insufficient, noting the lack of substantial evidence supporting these claims.6. Parity with Co-Accused Granted Bail:The petitioner sought bail on the ground of parity with co-accused Preeti Bhatia, who was granted interim bail by the Supreme Court. The court distinguished the petitioner's case from that of Preeti Bhatia, noting the petitioner's more significant role in the conspiracy and fund diversion.7. Delay in Trial Due to Non-Functioning of Trial Court:The petitioner argued that the delay in trial due to the non-functioning of the trial court should be a ground for bail. The court rejected this argument, noting that the CBI was ready to commence the trial as soon as the Presiding Officer joined and that the investigation was still open, necessitating the petitioner's continued custody to prevent tampering with evidence.Conclusion:The court concluded that the petitioner, involved in serious economic offences with significant societal impact, did not deserve bail. The petitioner's application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. was rejected, emphasizing the need to prioritize societal order over individual liberty in such cases.