Prima facie economic offences and risk of evidence tampering justified refusal of bail during continuing investigation.

The HC refused bail in a case involving cheating, criminal breach of trust, forgery and unlawful deposit-taking because the record disclosed a prima facie involvement of the accused and the investigation was still continuing. The Court found that the objection to re-registration of the same occurrence was untenable, as the matter had been transferred pursuant to judicial direction and the earlier registration was not treated as a fresh or successive FIR. It also considered the gravity of the allegations, the alleged cheating of depositors, and the real risk of tampering with evidence, and on that basis declined bail.

---

---

Issues: Whether bail should be granted to the accused in view of the materials collected during investigation, the stage of further investigation, and the objection that the case had been re-registered after earlier registration of the same occurrence.

Analysis: The materials on record, including oral and documentary evidence, disclosed a prima facie involvement of the accused in offences relating to cheating, criminal breach of trust, forgery and unlawful deposit-taking activities. The objection that re-registration of the same FIR with the economic offence wing was impermissible was rejected because the investigation was transferred pursuant to judicial direction and the earlier registration was not treated as a fresh or successive FIR. In deciding bail, the Court also considered the gravity of the allegations, the manner in which depositors were allegedly cheated, the fact that further investigation was still in progress, and the risk of tampering with evidence.

Conclusion: Bail was refused because the case against the accused disclosed a prima facie basis and the circumstances showed a real likelihood of interference with the evidence during continuing investigation.

Ratio Decidendi: In a case involving serious economic offences, bail may be refused where the record discloses a prima facie case and there is a likelihood of tampering with evidence during ongoing investigation.

---