TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (11) TMI 531
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e condition that the applicant/accused shall deposit 25% of the amount involved in the present case i.e. Rs. 22,41,07,387/- as a pre-requisite for his release on bail is contrary to the provisions of Finance Act, 1994 as well as to Article 265 of Constitution of India as it is not permissible under law. It is submitted that the said condition is unreasonable because even the department has demanded the said amount from the company and from the applicant/accused, the demand has been made u/s 78-A of the Finance Act in which the maximum penalty amount is Rs. 1.0 lakh only. It is submitted that another condition to furnish two sureties of Rs. 25 lacs each and to deposit the said amount by way of FDR is difficult for the applicant/accused to comply with. It is thus prayed that the instant application may be allowed and the above said two conditions may be set aside. 3. Ld. counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment in the matter of Sumit Mehta v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2013) 15 SCC 570, Kunal Kumar Tiwari v. State of Bihar (2018) 16 SCC 74, H S Pannu v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2007) 145 DLT 101, Sandeep Jian v. National Captial Territory of Delhi (2000) 2 SCC 66, Sheikh Ayub v. State....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stigation shall not be sufficient ground for refusing to grant bail if he is otherwise entitled to be released on bail and gives an undertaking that he shall comply with such directions as may be given by the Court. Provided also that no person shall, if the offence alleged to have been committed by him is punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for seven years or more, be released on bail by the Court under this sub-section without giving an opportunity of hearing to the Public Prosecutor. (2) If it appears to such officer or Court at any stage of the investigation, inquiry or trial, as the case may be, that there are not reasonable grounds for believing that the accused has committed a non-bailable offence, but that there are sufficient grounds for further inquiry into his guilt, the accused shall, subject to the provisions of section 446A and pending such inquiry, be released on bail, or, at the discretion of such officer or Court, on the execution by him of a bond without sureties for his appearance as hereinafter provided. (3) When a person accused or suspected of the commission of an offence punishable with imprisonment which may extend to seven ye....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is nature is totally excluded, even in cases of cheating, electricity pilferage, white-collar crimes or chit fund scams etc. (emphasis supplied) 9. In the matter of Kunal Kumar Tiwari (2018) 16 SCC 74, it has been observed by Hon'ble Apex Court that 9. The above quoted provision reveals that the court can impose conditions as mentioned under sub-clause (a) to (c) under subsection (3) to Section 437, provided that certain conditions prescribed there under are fulfilled. 10. Before we analyze the case at hand, first a word on interpretation. It is well settled legal proposition that in interpreting a provision of an Act, a construction that would promote the purpose or object underlying the Act (whether that purpose or object is expressly stated in the Act or not) should be preferred to an interpretation that would not promote the object. 11. There is no dispute that Sub-clause (c) of Section 437(3) allows Courts to impose such conditions in the interest of justice. We are aware that palpably such wordings are capable of accepting broader meaning. But such conditions cannot be arbitrary, fanciful or extend beyond the ends of the provision. The phrase 'interest of justice....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....certain amount, as a pre-requisite for bail, is not totally excluded in cases of cheating, white collar crimes etc. Reliance is placed upon Sumit Mehta v. State (NCT of Delhi) (supra). However, the condition ought not be extremely harsh or onerous. 13. It is a settled proposition of law that in matters relating to bail, economic offences constitutes a separate and distinct class. 14. It has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Gujarat v. Mohan Lal Jitamalji Porwal & Ors (1987) 2 SCC 364 as under: "..The entire Community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to books. A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the Community. A disregard for the interest of the Community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the Community in the system to administer justice in an even handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to t....