TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (8) TMI 1620
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sha Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 2011. 2. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was the Managing Director of M/s.Land India Real Estate Private Limited and M/s.Land India Assets Limited. It is alleged inter alia that the present petitioner and other Directors of these two Companies induced the general public to make deposits in different schemes of the company so that the amount invested will be doubled and accordingly, the valuable depositors deposited amount with a hope of receiving a good amount of interest thereon. It is the case of the prosecution that being assured by petitioner and other Directors under different schemes, public deposited an amount of R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fences for which it is a fit case where the petitioner should be released on bail. He further submitted that out of the collected amount, the major amount have already been returned to the depositors and the amount outstanding as claimed by the EOW is not correct. Since the maturity date has not lapsed, it is not fair on the part of the prosecution to claim for return of the amount by the date the petitioner was apprehended. So, the petitioner may be released on bail with any condition as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Mr.J.Patnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate, submitted that the petitioner, being the Managing Director of the above companies, has allured the public to deposit good amount o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 439; Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. Central Bureau of Investigation where Their Lordships observed at paragraphs-34, 35 and 36: "34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deep rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need 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. 35. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the heinous nature of the crime warrants more caution and there is greater change of rejection of bail, though, however dependant on the factual matrix of the matter. In the said decision, reference was made to Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi; (2001) 4 SCC 280 and the Court opined thus: (Sudarshan Singh case, SCC p.602, para 4). "(a) While granting bail the court has to keep in mind not only the nature of the accusations, but the severity of the punishment, if the accusation entails a conviction and the nature of evidence in support of the accusations. (b) Reasonable apprehensions of the witnesses being tampered with or the apprehension of there being a threat for the complainant should also weigh with the court in the m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rameters required for considering regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. should be also adhered to. Keeping in mind this principle, it has to find out as to whether the petitioner is entitled for bail. 9. On going through the statement of witnesses, it appears that the present petitioner was the Managing Director of M/s.Land India Real Estate Private Limited and M/s.Land India Assets Limited. The statements of Kabiranjan Sahoo, Purnachandra Kunda, Prahallad Swain, Kabiraj Palei and N.Jagaya Reddy and other witnesses, who have consistently stated that the present petitioner and the Directors of the above two companies have not obtained any permission from the Reserve Bank of India or any other authority to invest money in their respective....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... On going further through the aforesaid materials, undoubtedly the petitioner has allured the innocent depositors to invest money in their company prima facie and subsequently they decamped with the company. Very few amount of money has been realized and paid back to the depositors but yet huge amount of money is outstanding for payment to the investors. It is submitted by the learned Additional Government Advocate that vide Annexure-11 Rs.1,07,51,038.00 has been drawn from the accounts of the company, i.e, M/s.Land India Real Estate Private Limited and such amount has been misappropriated by the present petitioner as per the bank statement of the said company. The said fact undoubtedly amply proves the intention of the petitioner to grab ....