SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Del) 998

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Asha Menon, J.
Udipt Mani Jain - Appellant
Versus
State NCT Of Delhi - Respondent
Bail Appln. 1445/2022, Crl. M.As. 9141/2022 & 9142/2022 & Bail Appln. 1448/2022, Crl. M.As. 9156/2022 & 9157/2022
Decided On : 18-05-2022

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Mohit Mathur, Senior Advocate. with Dr. Harsh Surana, Mr. Sandeep Malik & Ms. Dipti Jain, Advocates, for the Applicant; Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, APP for State with SI Amit Pratap Singh Mr. Madhav Khurana with Mr. Sanjay Bhargava & Ms. Riya Arora, Advocates. for the complainan, for the Respondent; Mr. Mohit Mathur, Senior Advocate. with Dr. Harsh Surana, Mr. Sandeep Malik & Ms. Dipti Jain, Advocates, for the Applicant in Bail Appln. 1448/2022, Crl. M.As. 9156/2022 & 9157/2022; Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, APP for State with SI Amit Pratap Singh Mr. Madhav Khurana with Mr. Sanjay Bhargava & Ms. Riya Arora, Advocates. for the complainan, for the Respondent in Bail Appln. 1448/2022, Crl. M.As. 9156/2022 & 9157/2022

The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion in granting bail based on the absence of flight risk, the nature of the alleged offense, and the potential impact on trial proceedings.

Headnote:

Bail - Criminal Law - Sections 438/439 of Cr.P.C. - Summary of Acts and Sections: Cr.P.C. - Section 438/439 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 438 and 439 of the Cr.P.C. and their applicability in the context of the bail applications. The court also considered the legal principles related to bail, flight risk, and conditions for granting bail.

Fact of the Case:

The accused filed bail applications under Section 438/439 of Cr.P.C. after being summoned in a case registered under Sections 406/420 IPC. The accused had not been arrested, participated in investigations, and appeared before the court on summoning. The court had granted interim bail, but due to a misunderstanding, the accused remained absent on the date of bail orders, leading to the issuance of Non-Bailable Warrants (NBWs). Subsequently, the NBWs were cancelled, and the accused moved the Sessions Court for bail.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the accused were not at flight risk, as they had appeared on summoning and promptly moved for cancellation of the NBWs. The court also noted that the purpose of the money transferred to the accused was in dispute and would be a matter of trial and evidence. Considering these factors, the court allowed the bail applications and imposed specific conditions on the accused.

Issues: The issues involved the absence of the accused on the date of bail orders, the purpose of the money transferred, and the question of flight risk. The court also addressed the applicability of Sections 438 and 439 of Cr.P.C. and the legal principles related to bail and flight risk.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the absence of flight risk, the disputed purpose of the transferred money, and the lack of evidence tampering or trial interference by the accused. The court also considered the procedural aspects of bail orders and the conditions for granting bail.

Final Decision: The court allowed the bail applications and imposed specific conditions on the accused, including a personal bond, surety bond, and various restrictions on their movement and communication.

JUDGMENT

Asha Menon, J. - These two bail applications under Section 438/439 of Cr.P.C. seeking bail have been moved by the accused in FIR No.261/2018 dated 20th December, 2018 registered under Sections 406/420 IPC by the Economic Offences Wing, Delhi.

2. Mr. Mohit Mathur, learned senior counsel for the applicants submitted that neither of the two applicants had been arrested in respect of the FIR and that they have duly participated in the investigations. It is further submitted that though the charge-sheet had been filed against the applicant/Manindra Jain, he had not been arrested, whereas the applicant/Udipt Mani Jain had been shown in Column No.12. Both accused were however summoned by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (for short 'CMM') vide order dated 20th December, 2021 directing their appearance on 16th February, 2022. Both the applicants appeared on that date and applied for regular bail. The learned CMM, while adjourning the hearing on the regular bail applications, granted interim bail to both the applicants, till these applications were disposed of.

3. The learned senior counsel submitted that the hearing on the regular bail applications was concluded on 9th March, 2022 and the matter was to be taken up at 3.00 PM on 11th March, 2022 for orders. On 11th March, 2022, due to a misunderstanding, the accused remained absent, as a result of which the learned CMM did not pronounce the bail orders and rather directed the issuance of Non-Bailable Warrants (for short 'NBWs') against both the accused with notices to their sureties.

4. Thereafter, applications for cancellation of NBWs were moved on 14th March, 2022. On 15th March, 2022, the learned CMM dismissed the applications for cancellation of NBWs, and also dismissed the bail applications, and directed the accused to surrender and fresh NBWs were also directed to be issued. The learned senior counsel for the applicants submitted that subsequently, the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge vide order dated 6th April, 2022, cancelled the NBWs. A subsequent order of the learned Trial Court dated 8th April, 2022 issuing fresh NBWs was also set aside vide order dated 18th April, 2022.

5. After the bail applications were dismissed, the applicants moved the Sessions Court for bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The learned senior counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants ought to have moved for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. and not under Section 438 Cr.P.C. but the learned Sessions Court could also have read the right provision instead of dismissing the bail applications as not maintainable.

6. It is the submission of the learned senior counsel on behalf of the applicants that the case set up against the applicants is of a civil nature, the main issue being, whether a sum of Rs. 5,40,00,000/- had been paid to the applicant/Manindra Jain for purchase of a land or for production of the film 'Anna'. Since the receipt of the said amount has not been disputed, it would be a question of trial, whether any sum had been misappropriated as alleged, or whether there was any cheating on account of which the complainant paid Rs. 5,40,00,000/- to the accused Manindra Jain. As regards the applicant/Udipt Mani Jain, it is submitted that though a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- had been transferred into his account, Rs. 5,00,000/- had immediately been transferred into the account of M/s Rise Pictures Pvt. Ltd. Similarly, the sum of Rs. 5,34,00,000/- received by the applicant/Manindra Jain had also been transferred into the account of M/s Rise Pictures Pvt. Ltd. Thus, the mere factum of receipt cannot be held to be a culpable act, till there was proof of such mens rea upon evidence being led against the applicants.

7. The learned senior counsel for the applicants submitted that throughout the conduct of the applicants showed that they were not at flight risk. Even before the learned Trial Court, on summoning, they had appeared on 11th March, 2022, as also represented through counsel. I

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    Judicial Analysis

    AI

    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    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

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top