2024 (8) TMI 1518 - HC - Indian Laws

Former Legislative Council member gets bail in financial fraud case despite prosecution concerns about witness tampering

Bombay HC granted regular bail to an applicant charged with financial fraud under IPC and Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 1999. ... Seeking grant of Regular bail - financial fraud - charges under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 - HELD THAT:- In the Affidavit dated 20th April 2023, it is stated that the scope of investigation is very wide and complicated and therefore the investigation of the present offence is going on under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The said statement is also to be found in the Affidavit dated 10th June 2024 of Mr. Sanjay G. Chavan, Police Inspector, Economic Offences Wing, Pune City, Pune. The manner in which the offence has been committed as well as the conduct of the Applicant, and the Scrutiny Team of RBI was prevented from carrying out the scrutiny by the Staff members of the said Bank when the Applicant was the Chairman of the Bank, clearly shows that there is substance in the apprehension that the witnesses can be influenced. It is also required to be noted that when the RBI had issued the direction that only maximum amount of Rs.1,000/- be allowed to be withdrawn by the Depositors, the Applicant had withdrawn an amount of Rs.2 Crores. The same clearly shows that the Applicant is very influential, he has no regards for the law and he can go to any extent. Although the Applicant is entitled to be released on bail due to the violation of his fundamental right to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, however, stringent conditions are required to be imposed on the Applicant. In this behalf, it is also required to be noted that the Applicant is a former Member of the Legislative Council for two terms and he is very influential person. The Supreme Court in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay [2018 (10) TMI 74 - SUPREME COURT] has issued various directions in said decision in Paragraph No.21 for expeditious disposal of criminal cases against MP or MLA. The Supreme Court in the said decision has also made reference to the earlier Order dated 4th December 2018 where it is directed that criminal cases punishable with death/life against sitting and former MPs/MLAs should be taken up on a priority basis. In the present case, the offence is also under Section 409 of the IPC which is punishable with life imprisonment. Conclusion - The applicant should be granted bail with conditions due to the prolonged detention and lack of trial progress. The applicant is granted bail subject to fulfilment of conditions imposed - Bail application allowed. The judgment revolves around a bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The applicant is accused of being involved in a significant financial fraud concerning the Shivajirao Bhosale Co-operative Bank, Pune, leading to charges under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999.Issues Presented and Considered:The core issues considered by the court include:Whether the applicant should be granted bail considering the nature and seriousness of the allegations.The applicant's right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.The potential for the applicant to influence witnesses or tamper with evidence if released on bail.Whether the applicant's incarceration period and the delay in trial proceedings justify bail.The applicability of the principle of parity with co-accused who have been granted bail.The applicant's medical condition as a ground for bail.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents:The court considered the legal framework under Section 439 of the CrPC for granting bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the charges under the IPC and the MPID Act. The court also referred to precedents from the Supreme Court, including cases like Manish Sisodia v. Enforcement Directorate and Sheikh Javed Iqbal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which discuss the right to a speedy trial and conditions for granting bail.2. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning:The court acknowledged the severity of the allegations against the applicant, highlighting the financial misappropriation and the applicant's influential position. However, it also recognized the prolonged incarceration of the applicant without significant progress in the trial, which infringes on the applicant's right to a speedy trial.3. Key Evidence and Findings:The prosecution presented evidence of financial discrepancies and fraudulent loan transactions linked to the applicant. The applicant's involvement in the misappropriation of funds and the creation of NPAs was detailed, with the prosecution arguing that the applicant was the kingpin of the fraud.4. Application of Law to Facts:The court applied the principles of bail jurisprudence, balancing the seriousness of the offense with the applicant's right to liberty. It considered the applicant's influential status and potential to interfere with the investigation but also weighed the lack of trial progress and the applicant's long detention period.5. Treatment of Competing Arguments:The prosecution opposed the bail, citing the applicant's significant role in the fraud and potential to influence the trial. The applicant's counsel argued for bail based on the right to a speedy trial, parity with co-accused, and the applicant's health condition. The court found merit in the argument regarding the right to a speedy trial but imposed stringent conditions to mitigate the risk of interference.6. Conclusions:The court concluded that while the allegations are severe, the applicant's prolonged detention without trial progress justifies bail under stringent conditions. The court emphasized the need for a speedy trial and imposed conditions to prevent any potential interference by the applicant.Significant Holdings:The court held that the applicant is entitled to bail due to the violation of the right to a speedy trial. It imposed several conditions to ensure the applicant's compliance and to mitigate the risk of influencing the trial. The conditions include restrictions on the applicant's movement, regular reporting to the police, prohibition on contacting witnesses, and surrendering the passport.Core Principles Established:The right to a speedy trial is fundamental and can justify bail even in serious offenses if the trial is unduly delayed.Stringent conditions can balance the need for liberty with the risk of interference in the judicial process.The influential status of an accused requires careful consideration in bail decisions to prevent potential misuse.Final Determinations on Each Issue:The court determined that the applicant should be granted bail with conditions due to the prolonged detention and lack of trial progress. It underscored the importance of a speedy trial and directed the trial court to expedite proceedings.