TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (4) TMI 1661
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....plicant and co­accused by some of the investors, various offences, as referred to earlier, were registered against this applicant and the co­accused. The investigation made disclosed that this applicant had prima facie defrauded more than 5500 depositors and swindled their money amounting to Rs. 200 crores. A charge-sheet was, therefore, filed against the applicant and now the charge has also been framed on 6.1.2016 for the aforesaid offences against this applicant and the co­accused. Now, the case is pending at the stage of recording of the evidence of the witnesses. 3. Smt Bharti Dangre, learned Public Prosecutor has taken an exception to the maintainability of this application filed under Section 439 Cr. P. C. as the previous application filed by this applicant (BA/955/2015) was allowed to be withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 18.1.2016. She submits that the applicant now cannot push forward his case on merits of the matter. 4. Shri Dewani, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the application, as filed by this applicant, is more on other grounds than really on merits of the case. He submits that when the charge-sheet has already been filed and t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....no doubt about the principles of law referred to by learned counsel for the applicant, the court is required to strike a balance between individual interest and societal interest by keeping in mind all the relevant parameters which govern the discretionary power of the court to grant or refuse the bail. She submits that this is a case where the innocent investors have been duped and relieved of their huge funds by fraudulent means by this applicant and, therefore, the crime prima facie committed by the applicant has graver degree. She submits that if the applicant is released on bail, it would not only undermine the societal interest, but also give rise to possibility of the applicant thwarting the course of justice by resorting to the same tricks which he employed for entrapping the unsuspecting investors. 8. In the case of Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court considered all the precedents in the field and held that when the under-trial prisoners are detained in jail custody to an indefinite period, Article 21 of the Constitution is violated. It further held that the primary purposes of bail in a criminal case are to relieve the accused of imprisonment and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llant in that case was in custody for a period of about 3 and half years and it was also clear that the number of witnesses cited by the prosecution being much, it was not possible for the trial Court to reasonably conclude the trial within a few years and, therefore, denial of bail to the applicant in such a fact situation was held to be unjust and improper. 12. Keeping in view these well­settled principles of law, I find that the offences prima facie committed by this applicant being of very serious nature and much graver than in other cases as the evidence prima facie suggests that more than about 5500 gullible depositors have been taken for a ride by this applicant, the possibility of the applicant interfering with the prosecution witnesses and course of justice which are also aspects of fair trial, is not reasonably ruled out. This applicant has, as rightly submitted by learned Public Prosecutor, prima facie employed tricks in entrapping the innocent investors and the amount swindled by the applicant being of more than Rs. 200 crores, the possibility of this applicant coming out with some proposal for the witnesses who are also his investors, to say something else with ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ceived. On 24.2.106, applicant filed another pursis (exhibit 139) informing the court that he still had not received some documents submitted along with the charge-sheet. Report of the trial Judge further shows that the trial Court somehow or the other succeeded in fixing the case for recording the evidence in the case on 14.3.2016. But on that date, this applicant filed another application (exhibit 145) under Section 10 of the MPID Act seeking direction to the State to pay Rs. 50,000/­ as monthly maintenance expenses and Rs. 5 lacs for meeting the legal expenses. 14. The above discussion would only show that although this applicant is in jail for about three and half years and the trial of the case against him has not yet acquired desired momentum, blame for his detention and tardy progress of trial cannot be entirely put upon the State. Applicant and other co-accused too have their some share and this is when they are equally obliged in law to render their cooperation in expeditious disposal of the trial of the case against them. One of the offences with which theis applicant has been charged with an offence under Section 409 IPC. This offence attracts maximum punishment o....