Back
M. S. KARNIK
Arvind Sethi – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent-CBI.
2. The petitioner by this writ petition challenges the order dated 27/9/2019 passed by the Special Court for CBI at Greater Bombay in discharge application Exhibit 193 in CBI Special Case No.4 of 2018.
3. There are in all fourteen accused. The petitioner is the accused no.3 in the charge-sheet. The prosecution case in brief is as follows:-
Bail in economic offences should be denied to protect the larger public and state interest and prevent tampering with witnesses.
Prima facie involvement in loan fraud via false reports justifies denying discharge despite Section 17A approval.
The court established that a lack of prima facie evidence warrants quashing of criminal proceedings, emphasizing the limited scope of judicial review under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
At the discharge stage, the court must determine if there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused based on the prosecution's evidence, without conducting a mini-trial.
Repayment of loan amount prior to FIR, issuance of "no due certificate" by Bank, and presence of sufficient materials on record negate allegations of cheating and forgery, and prevent discharge from ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
