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
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
AI
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 p....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the purpose of the money transferred to the accused, as well as the absence of flight risk and fear of tampering with evidence, were crucial f....
Bail granted in criminal cases must consider the seriousness of allegations and available evidence; however, re-evaluation of merits is impermissible in cancellation proceedings.
Grant of bail though being a discretionary order, calls for exercise of such discretion in a judicious manner and is dependent upon contextual facts of the matter being dealt with by Court.
Point of Law : Legal position set out in the decision referred to hereinabove, the instances of forgery committed by the applicant, not only in the transactions entered with the complainant but also ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.