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>Bail in economic offence cases: court denies bail to alleged kingpin citing tampering and public interest risk</h1> Bail in economic-offence litigation requires a distinct balance between liberty and public interest; the court treated the accused as an alleged kingpin ... Bail in criminal cases balancing right to liberty and public interest - Economic and socio-economic offences different approach to bail due to gravity and deep-rooted conspiracy - Risk of tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses - Role of charge-sheet and continued investigation in bail assessment - Kingpin/prime accused and custodial risks - Article 21 of the Constitution of India - High Court exercise of jurisdiction under - HELD THAT:- It is seen that CBI has already filed the Charge-Sheet in the instant case against the accused- Taket Jerang along with others and Supplementary Charge-Sheet is also filed by the CBI in connection with the present case. It is a fact that the accused is behind the bar for a considerable period and in the same time, it is also seen that the Charge-Sheet has already been filed in the said case, though some other cases are still under investigation where the accused is alleged to have been involved in leaking of the question papers relating to the other examinations also. But, the nature of offence alleged against the present accused- Taket Jerang is that he is the kingpin of the entire crime of leaking the question papers in the examinations conducted by the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission(APPSC) and he being the prime accused of this case, the probability of tampering the evidences or influencing the witnesses in connection with this case cannot out rightly be rejected. More so, the charge against the present accused falls under the category of economic offence, which is considered to be grave in nature and affects the public at large and the Court has to take a different approach while dealing with such kind of offence. In this context, a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nimmagadda Prasad [2013 (5) TMI 920 - SUPREME COURT] can be relied on, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has expressed the view that “economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offence having deep rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds needs to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country.” So, considering the nature and gravity of the offence and also considering the fact that the present accused, being the kingpin or the prime accused of this case, there is every probability of influencing the other witnesses as well as tampering the evidences cannot out rightly be rejected, and further considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it proper to enlarge the accused on bail. Accordingly, the petition stands rejected. Issues: Whether the accused (prime/kingpin) charged with offences including cheating, criminal conspiracy and offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act should be enlarged on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.Analysis: The Court considered that the accused has been charged with offences of grave nature affecting public interest and the credibility of public examinations, that CBI has filed charge-sheet and supplementary charge-sheet, and that parallel investigations implicate the accused in multiple examinations. The Court applied established bail principles, giving weight to the nature and gravity of economic/socio-economic offences (which are regarded as a class apart), the reasonable apprehension of tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses given the accused's alleged central role, and the continuation of related investigations. The Court also noted the duration of detention but found that the risk of tampering and the deep-rooted conspiracy allegations outweighed that factor.Conclusion: Bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is rejected; the accused is not enlarged on bail. (Decision is in favour of the Respondent)
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
