The main legal point established in the judgment is that the seriousness of the charges, the accused's behavior, and the likelihood of a fair trial are crucial factors in determining the grant of bail in economic offence cases.

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J.

1. The present is a petition under section 439 Cr.P.C., 1973 on behalf of the applicant Rajesh Anand seeking regular bail in FIR No.298/2013, under sections 420/468/471 IPC, registered at Police Station-Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi.

2. It would be relevant to point out that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 09.09.2014 and the subject charge sheet has been filed on 15.11.2014 after investigation.

3. Mr. Zafar Sadique, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that the subject charge sheet has been filed without annexing a copy of the report of FSL in respect of the allegedly forged signatures on the Power of Attorney in relation to sale of property No.B-2, Ridge Castle Apartment, Dada Bari, Mehrauli, New Delhi. Mr. Sadique would, therefore, urge that since the applicant has been in judicial custody since 09.09.2014 and the charge sheet has been filed, no useful purpose shall be served by keeping the applicant in judicial custody. In this behalf, Mr. Zafar Sadique has invited my attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported at (2012) 1 SCC 40 as well as the decision of this court Rajat Sharma vs. State of NCT of Delhi in Bail Application No.279/2015 decided on 21.04.2015 to urge that although the applicant is charged with an economic offence arising out of a commercial transaction, the presence of the applicant in further custody is not necessary. Mr. Sadique further submits that the offences of which the applicant is charged are triable by a Magistrate. Mr. Sadique lastly submits that in fact the applicant only received a loan of Rs.14,00,000/-and not Rs.50,00,000/-as alleged by the prosecution and has already repaid the complainant to the tune of Rs.8,00,000/-. In other words, the subject FIR is the consequence of a commercial transaction between the complainant and the applicant and the latter has been falsely implicated.

4. On the other hand, Ms. Isha Khanna, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State would urge that there is every possibility of the applicant tampering with the evidence and absconding in the event of his release because of his previous involvement in other cases.

5. According to the prosecution, the applicant is alleged to have duped the complainant of Rs.50,00,000/-. The applicant induced the complainant to advance a loan of Rs.50,00,000/-on interest at the rate of Rs.2% per month and pledged the subject property in order to secure repayment by claiming to be the owner thereof. Subsequently, since the applicant allegedly neither repaid the loan nor the interest, the complainant made enquiries and found out to his shock that the applicant was not the owner of the subject property pledged by him, to secure repayment of the loan.

6. In the landmark decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra (supra) the relevant paragraphs relied upon by the counsel for the applicant are as under:-

“45. In Bihar Fodder Scam (Laloo Prasad case) this Court, taking into consideration the seriousness of the charges alleged and the maximum sentence of imprisonment that could be imposed including the fact that the Appellants were in jail for a period more than six months as on the date of passing of the order, was of the view that the further detention of the Appellants as pretrial prisoners would not serve any purpose.

46. We are conscious of the fact that the accused are charged with economic offences of huge magnitude. We are also conscious of the fact that the offences alleged, if proved, may jeopardize the economy of the country. At the same time, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the investigating agency has already completed investigation and the charge sheet is already filed before the Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi. Therefore, their presence in the custody may not be necessary for further investigation. We are of the view that the Appellants are entitled to the grant of bail pen