Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Del) 1049

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prateek Jalan, J.
Manohar Sitaram Patil - Appellant
Versus
State Of NCT Of Delhi - Respondent
Bail Application No. 1042 of 2022
Decided On : 04-04-2022

Advocates appeared:
Kunal A. Cheema, Advocate, Vatsalya Vigya, Advocate, Avi Singh, Advocate, Karan Dhalla, Advocate, Mizba Dhebar, Advocate, Dharmendra Pratap Singh, Advocate

The severity of economic offences and the impact on the economy warrant a different approach in the matter of bail, as cautioned by the Supreme Court.

Headnote:
BAIL - Criminal Procedure - CrPC 439 - IPC 406/420/120B - The court discussed the applicant's conduct, including failure to surrender, and the serious economic offences alleged against him. The court cited the Supreme Court's caution on economic offences and denied bail based on the severity of the accusations and the potential impact on the economy.
Fact of the Case:

The applicant sought regular bail in connection with a case involving allegations of cheating and forgery in a real estate project. The applicant had a history of not appearing before the Trial Court and was declared a Proclaimed Offender. The court rejected the bail application based on the seriousness of the economic offences and the applicant's conduct.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the applicant's failure to surrender, history of not appearing before the Trial Court, and the serious nature of the economic offences alleged against him were grounds to deny bail.
Issues: The main issue was whether the applicant was entitled to bail in light of the serious economic offences and his conduct, including failure to surrender and history of not appearing before the Trial Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the severity of the accusations, the nature of evidence, the potential impact on the economy, and the applicant's conduct in denying bail. The court also cited the Supreme Court's caution on economic offences and the need for a different approach in the matter of bail for such offences.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the bail application, emphasizing the seriousness of the economic offences alleged and the applicant's conduct, including failure to surrender and history of not appearing before the Trial Court.

JUDGMENT

Prateek Jalan, J. - The proceedings in the matter have been conducted through hybrid mode [physical and virtual hearing].

CRL. M.a. 6140/2022(Exemption)

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

The application stands disposed of.

BaIL aPPLN. 1042/2022

1. By way of this application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [hereinafter, 'CrPC'], the applicant seeks regular bail in connection with FIR No. 112/2010, dated 29.07.2010, registered at Police Station Economic Offences Wing, Delhi, under Sections 406/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereinafter, 'IPC'].

2. The FIR was registered on a complaint dated 29.07.2010, filed by one ajeet Gupta, who was an employee of Indian Farmers Fertilizer Cooperative Limited [hereinafter, 'IFFCO']. It was alleged in the complaint that the employees of IFFCO entered into certain monetary transactions with one M/s Pragati Land and Housing Corporation ['hereinafter, 'PLHC'], of which the applicant is a partner. By way of these transactions, PLHC was to deliver plots to its investors in the project 'Pragati Valley' by 15.05.2007. It was further alleged that around 114 employees of IFFCO booked their plots in the said project and paid a total of Rs 1.25 crores to PLHC. The complainant further alleges that PLHC, however, neither delivered the plots, nor refunded the amount which was collected from the employees of IFFCO. It is further alleged that the applicant, alongwith his other co-accused, duped innocent employees of IFFCO by misrepresenting that they had purchased 300 acres of land in Karjat, District Raigad, Maharashtra for developing their residential township.

3. The applicant was arrested in connection with the present FIR on 19.09.2014. By an order dated 27.05.2015, passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate [hereinafter, 'CMM'], the applicant herein was granted interim bail for a period of 120 days. It is noted in the order of the CMM that the accused sought interim bail on the ground that he had already settled the disputes with the complainant pursuant to which they had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding, and a sum of Rs. 62,48,203/-, out of the total collected money, was already paid to them through 115 Demand Drafts. He further prayed that he be released on interim bail for raising the remaining 50% funds for settling the disputes with the persons who were defrauded by PLHC. The interim bail was extended by various orders of the CMM until 2017, primarily on the ground that the applicant is willing to settle the matter with the investors and that he needs more time to return the money to the affected persons.

4. However, by an order dated 19.07.2017, the applicant's application for exemption from personal appearance was rejected by the CMM, and non-bailable warrants [hereinafter, 'NBWs'] were issued against him. The personal bond as well as the surety bond was forfeited and notice to the sureties under Section 446 of the CrPC was issued. It was also noted in this order that the accused persons did not contact the complainant for settlement and that they were deliberately trying to delay the proceedings before the Trial Court. The applicant did not enter appearance before the Trial Court even after the issuance of the NBWs, and subsequently proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of the CrPC were commenced against him. He, alongwith the other co-accused, was, therefore, declared a Proclaimed Offender [hereinafter, 'PO'] by an order dated 08.05.2018, passed by the CMM.

5. The applicant was arrested from Karjat, Maharasthra [where he was in judicial custody in relation to some other case] on 19.08.2021 in connection with another FIR [FIR No 220/2011, PS EOW], and was taken into custody in the present case on 17.09.2021 by the Link Metropolitan Magistrate. The applicant's application for bail has since been rejected by the CMM vide an order dated 09.12.2021, and by the Sessions Court vide an order dated 06.01.2022.

6. The order of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document