IMPORTANT POINT
Rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at an initial stage and cancellation of bail so granted has to be dealt with and considered on different basis – Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing cancellation of bail already granted.

JUDGMENT :

M.R. Shah, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 14.09.2020 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Bail Application No.2442 of 2020 by which the High Court has allowed the said application preferred by the Respondent No.2 herein and has directed that he be released on bail in connection with FIR No.128 of 2019 PS Economic Offences Wing in New Delhi for the offences under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC, the original complainant has preferred the present appeal.

2. That the appellant herein a nonbanking financial company (NBFC) lodged an FIR/complaint with the Economic Offences Branch, New Delhi against the company M/s Sri Aranath Logistics Limited (formerly known as M/s LMJ Logistics Limited), Respondent No.2 herein Jayant Kumar Jain - Managing Director and others for the offences under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC. It was alleged against the accused - Respondent No.2 herein that he is the Managing Director of M/s Aranath Logistics Limited engaged in the business of multi-commodity trading of agricultural and non-commodities agricultural. That by way of written agreement accused availed loan credit facilities to the tune of Rs.25 crores for a term of 180 days from the complainant company. It was alleged that the said amount of Rs.25 crores was disbursed in the year 2017. It was alleged that the said amount of Rs.25 crores was required to be used by the company for its own purpose. It was further alleged that for the purpose of repayment of loan, no stock statement was submitted and mortgage was also not created as agreed between the parties. It was further alleged that instead of using the amount for the purpose mentioned in the agreement the same was transferred to several fake/shell companies. It was further alleged that at the time of availing the loan the accused misrepresented to the complainant about the financial health of the company of the accused. It was further alleged that the amount of around Rs.8 crores stated to have been diverted into such shell companies which were created by the accused in the name of his employees and bank account was opened for transaction of those companies by using forged and fabricated documents of identities of those employees and the said amount was further siphoned off to other companies which were connected to the accused. It was further alleged that Directors of those shell entities have stated that they have not opened the bank account in the said name or said firm and their KYC form was misused by the accused. It was further alleged that a sum of Rs.15 crores was transferred to another company - LMJ International Ltd. and the said amount was used for the purpose of setting off against the previous liability of the said company with the Corporation Bank, Calcutta. That after the preliminary investigation on the complaint of the appellant herein - original complainant, the Economic Offences Wing having found a prima facie case against Respondent No.2 and others, FIR being FIR No.128 was registered. The Respondent No.2 came to be arrested on 03.07.2020. The Respondent No.2 filed an application before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate seeking bail under Section 437 Cr.P.C. One another bail application for regular bail being Bail Application No.903 of 2020 was moved on behalf of the Respondent No.2 - Accused before the Court of Sessions Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. The said bail application was opposed by the I.O. A status report was filed pointing out how the amount of 25 crores was siphoned off and transferred to other shell companies and how the said amount was used by the Respondent No.2 for other companies. Vide order dated 04.08.2020 by a detailed speaking order, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the bail application. That thereafter, respondent no.2 - accused filed