The seriousness of the charges, potential influence on prosecution witnesses, and the adverse impact on society are crucial factors in deciding bail applications in cases involving high economic magnitude crimes.

1. The applicant, who is a secretary of the Sindhu Education Society, Jaripatka, Nagpur, a registered minority educational institution having under its wing in all 12 educational institutions, was arrested on 12.11.2015 on the allegation that he amassed huge wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income during the check period of about 25 years i.e. between the year 1990 and 2015 and, in doing so, he with the help of his wife (accused No.2) resorted to various contraptions, like threatening his employees with termination of their services, if they failed to pay the monies demanded by him or failed to obey his orders, indulging in deceptions and cheating as well as preparing of false documents and using them as genuine and also misappropriating the money of the institution.

2. During the pendency of the investigation, the applicant moved a bail application before the Special Court (ACB) Nagpur, but it was rejected by it. The applicant also moved this Court under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code by filing Criminal Application (BA) No.939/2015. This application was rejected by this Court on 22nd December, 2015. The matter was carried by the applicant to the Hon’ble Apex Court by filing a Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (CRL) No.1640/2016. The S.L.P. was allowed to be withdrawn by the Hon’ble Apex Court with liberty to the applicant to renew his request for grant of bail by filing an appropriate application after charge was framed. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also observed that the trial Court, while framing the charge, shall proceed on its own merits uninfluenced by any of the observations made by the High Court. The order to this effect was passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 22.12.2015.

3. The charge came to be framed against this applicant and his wife accused No.2 by the Special Court (ACB) Nagpur on 26.7.2016. It was for offence punishable under Sections 13(2) read with Sections 13(1)(c), 13(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and also for offences punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471, 168 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. On the same day, the applicant filed an application before the Special Court (ACB) for grant of regular bail. The application, however, was rejected by the learned Special Judge by his order passed on 8th August, 2016. Thereafter, the applicant has filed this application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking his release on bail.

4. I have heard Shri Sunil Manohar, learned Senior Counsel with Shri A.A. Naik, learned Counsel for the applicant and Shri S.S.Doifode, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State assisted by Shri P.S. Verma, learned counsel for the intervenor. I have perused the paper book of this application, reply of the prosecution and the statements of relevant witnesses and relevant material produced before me by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

5. Shri Sunil Manohar, learned Senior Counsel, submits that there was an open enquiry during the period from 2012 to 2015 against this applicant in which, according to the prosecution, some incriminating material was found against the applicant because of which, the applicant was arrested. He further submits, this enquiry itself was conducted for some political reasons and though has been stated to be incriminating this applicant, is, in fact not so. He submits that now the investigation is over and even the charge has been framed and so there is no need for keeping the applicant in custody for any longer period of time and that if there is any apprehension about this applicant influencing prosecution witnesses, though unfounded, the applicant can be put to stringent conditions. He submits that the applicant is ready to stay outside the limits of city of Nagpur, if required by this Court. He also submits that the applicant has deep roots in society and when further detention of the applicant is not necessary denying him bail would only amount to h