TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (1) TMI 1272
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the Complainant had received a message and an email from the Company stating that if he invested his money, they would give him a 200% return within 1 year. The Directors, Dr. Saroj Mahapatra and Rajesh Mahto called the Complainant and invited him to Netaji Subhash Place where they told him about the Company and explained their plans to expand it on the lines of Uber/Ola. They told the Complainant that the Company was registered with RBI and SEBI. They further made the Complainant meet one Mrs. Daisy Vijay Menon who showed the Complainant the plan of the Company. c. It is stated that after much insistence, the Complainant invested Rs. 9,00,000/-. Further, the Complainant‟s friends, namely Rajesh Kumar, Rajender Singh, Yogender Singh, Umed Singh, Ajay, Sunil also invested Rs. 15 to 20 lakhs. It is stated that on the 10th of every month, instalment would be sent to the account of the investors, however, after the first two months, no instalment was made. On speaking with Harish Bhati and Rajesh Mahto, the Complainant was informed that he would get the third instalment by 15th of the month, i.e. 15th March, however, the third instalment was still not made. On calling the Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eral of the alleged victims received up to 40-50% of their invested amount within a month which buttressed the fact that early investors had received significant returns from the accused Company. Mr. Rana argues that it is not rational to assume that the Petitioner would induce his own relatives to invest in a scheme if he possessed the intention to scam people. 5. Mr. Rana submits that there is not an iota of evidence against the Petitioner in BAIL APPLN. 3750/2021. He further relies on Sadhupati Nageswara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2012) 8 SCC 547-A to submit that the essential ingredient for invoking both Sections 406 and 409 IPC is "entrustment" and there is no evidence which suggests that the Petitioner had ever been entrusted with any money or property. He further argues that the FIR in the present case was registered two years ago and that till date the investigation is nowhere near completion. Mr. Rana submits that the declaration of PO is misconceived as the Petitioner had no intention to evade the law and was merely exercising his legal remedy of seeking anticipatory bail. 6. Mr. Pradeep Singh Rana, learned Counsel for the Petitioner in BAIL APPLN. 3750/2021, furt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... director and that he only received Rs. 11 lakhs, which was his remuneration, out of the alleged cheated amount of Rs. 250 crores. 10. Mr. Pushkar argues that the accused Company has suffered heavy losses due to cheating, fraud and misappropriation by two of its Directors, namely Daisy Vijay Menon and Saroj Mahapatra, and Yes Bank illegally froze its accounts on 05.12.2018. He states that as a result, the money could not be given to the investors and that the accused Company is still committed to return the money to its investors. He further submits that even the co-accused Saroj Mahapatra did not mention the Petitioner while his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was being recorded, which indicates that the Petitioner did not play a major role in the accused Company. 11. Mr. Pushkar submits that the trial is likely to take a long while. He submits that the Petitioner is the sole earning member in his family, and that chargesheet as well as supplementary chargesheet have already been filed. He further states that the evidence is primarily documentary in nature and the same is already in the custody of the police. Therefore, further incarceration of the Petitioner is not required....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ferred was merely a profit. However, it was noted that the Petitioner received the cheated money through the bank accounts of his family members. It is further revealed that notices under Section 41A Cr.P.C. were issued to the Petitioner, but he never joined the investigation, and when efforts were made to arrest him, he was found absconding. It states that the Petitioner was also declared PO. It states that many investors had named the Petitioner in their complaints, and that ingredients of Section 420 IPC were made out against the Petitioner. 16. With regard to Petitioner in BAIL APPLN. 3921/2021, the chargesheet and supplementary chargesheet have been filed under Sections 406/409/471/420/120-B/174-A IPC and reveal that the amount collected from the investors is expected to be more than Rs. 240 crores and the Petitioner was the Managing Director of the accused Company. It states that the Petitioner never joined the investigation despite several notices under Section 41A Cr.P.C. being issued to him. He was also found to be absconding when efforts were made to arrest him. Accordingly, an NBW was obtained against the Petitioner and he was declared an Absconder vide Court order date....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....est times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some unconvicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, "necessity" is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances. 23. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson. 24. In the instant case,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nitude of the offence cannot be the only criterion for denial of bail. The object of bail is to secure the presence of the accused at the time of trial; this object is, thus, neither punitive nor preventative, and a person who has not been convicted should only be kept in custody if there are reasons to believe that they might flee from justice or tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses. If there is no apprehension of interference in administration of justice in a criminal trial by an accused, then the Court should be circumspect while considering depriving the accused of their personal liberty. Mere vague belief that the accused may thwart the investigation cannot be a ground to prolong the incarceration of the accused. 20. Most importantly, while the Petitioner in BAIL APPLN. 3750/2021 was arrested on 09.12.2020, the Petitioner in BAIL APPLN. 3921/2021 was arrested on 22.08.2020. Both the Petitioners have been in custody for over a year now. Chargesheet as well as supplementary chargesheet have been filed, and all the evidence available is documentary in nature and in custody of the investigating agency. Whether or not the cheated money was entrusted to the Petitioner....