IMPORTANT POINT
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.

ORDER :

Arvind Kumar Verma, J.

This is the first bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail filed by the applicant as he has been arrested in connection with FIR No.04/2024 dated 17.01.2024 (arrested on 25.04.2024) registered by the EOW/ACB, Chhatisgarh for commission of offences punishable under Sections 420,467, 471 & 120(B) of the IPC and Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

2.Brief facts of the case are as under:

(i) An income tax complaint was filed on 11.05.2022 against Anil Tuteja, Anwar Dhebar and 12 others under Sections 276(c), 277, 278,278E of IT Act read with Section 120-B, 190,191,199,200,204 IPC for the alleged collection of kickbacks through an organized syndicate.

(ii) ECIR/RPZO/11/2022 (“ECIR 11”) was registered by ED in Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA Act) on 18.11.2022 on the basis of Section 120-B in the aforesaid IT complaint. The applicant was arrested on 11.05.2023 and the prosecution complaint was filed on 04.07.2023 against seven accused persons including the applicant.

(iii) The ED had sent a letter dated 11.07.2023 under Section 66(2) of the PMLA to the ACB, Chhattisgarh disclosing that the investigation in ECIR 11 had allegedly disclosed generation of INR 2161 Crore proceeds of the crime. Pertinently, the applicant was not named therein. It is further alleged that the applicant is involved in collecting illegal commission charged from the liquor suppliers for sale of liquor and also in sale of off-the record unaccounted illicit country liquor from State run shops. On the basis of this letter, the present FIR No. 04/2024 was registered by ACB Chhattisgarh on 17.01.2024.

(iv) On 08.04.2024, the Hon’ble Supreme Court quashed the prosecution complaint filed in ECIR 11 inter alia holding that there is no scheduled offence and hence, there can be no proceeds of crime under the PMLA Act.

(v) The charge sheet came to be filed on 29.06.2024 against the applicant and three others (ie. Arunpati Tripathi, Anwar Dhebar and Arvind Singh). The allegation against the present applicant is that he and his entities (Dhillon City Mall and Petrosun Bio Refineries) received commissions and unsecured loans from FL10A license holders and rice millers on behalf of Anwar Dhebar and the applicant utilized the same to purchase 18 flats in the name of his employees and further investigation is going on.

3.Contention of the learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Siddarth Agrawal for the applicant is that:

(a) the investigation qua the applicant is concluded and the trial is likely to take time therefore custodial detention is no longer necessary and is violation of the rights of the applicant under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

(i) It has been consistently held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the right to speedy trial is enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution, irrespective of the nature of crime and bail cannot be withheld as a punitive measure without trial. He has relied upon the judgment of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of Maharastra and Another, 2024 SCC Online SC 1693; Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI and Another (2022) 10 SCC 51 and Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40.

The Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40, has observed as under:

"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.

22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From