Back
ARVIND KUMAR VERMA
Dilip Pandey S/o Chote Lal Pandey – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
ORDER :
ARVIND KUMAR VERMA, J.
By way of present application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’), the applicant seeks grant of regular bail in case arising out of Crime No. 4/2024 registered by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW), Raipur on 17.01.2024 of the offence punishable under Sections 7 & 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 34 of the IPC.
2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that the EOW has received a communication from the Enforcement Directorate dated 11.07.2023 and after due verification, prima facie a cognizable offence for commission of the offence under Sections 7 & 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 420, 467, 471 and 120(B) of IPC was made out and FIR was registered under Crime No. 04/2024.
3. It is the case of the applicant that the applicant is employed by the Prizm Holography for the last five years. Initially he was appointed for a salary of Rs. 25,000/- and gradually it increased to Rs. 50,000/-. The employer/company has engaged the applicant to maintain and manage data. The applicant has been arrested on 09.07.2024 by the police of ACB/EOW, Raipur, Distric
The court emphasized that bail is the exception, not the rule, particularly in serious economic offences, where the risk of tampering with evidence and flight is significant.
The court emphasized that bail is not a right in cases involving serious economic offences, particularly where substantial evidence of corruption exists.
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; economic offences necessitate careful consideration due to their serious implications on public interest and the economy.
The court emphasized that in economic offences, especially under the PMLA, bail should not be granted unless the accused demonstrates they are not guilty and unlikely to commit further offences.
The court held that mere employment and routine tasks do not establish criminal intent or conspiracy, emphasizing the necessity of clear evidence for such charges.
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception, especially in serious economic offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, where the gravity of charges necessitates stringent scrutiny.
The court emphasized that bail under the PMLA requires satisfaction of twin conditions regarding the accused's guilt and likelihood of committing further offences, which were not met in this case.
In economic offences, bail is not a right; the burden rests on the applicant to show no risk of interference with justice or likelihood of guilt, reinforced by the position of the accused.
The court held that the applicant failed to satisfy the twin conditions for bail under Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002, due to the serious nature of the allegations and the evidence presented.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that bail is the general rule and its refusal is an exception, and that deprivation of personal liberty must be considered a form of punishment. Th....
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
