The main legal point established is that an accused charged under a non-bailable offense, but with a compoundable nature and a maximum punishment of 3 years, may be granted bail after considering factors such as incarceration period and adequacy of security.

JUDGMENT

Tushar Rao Gedela, J.

[The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode]

1. By way of the present bail petition under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, the applicant, who is accused in case FIR No.173/2015 dated 17.12.2015 registered under sections 409/420/120B of Indian Penal Code 1860 (`IPC') at Police Station EOW, seeks regular bail.

2. Notice on this petition was issued on 20.09.2022. Status report dated 27.09.2022 has been filed. Though updated nominal roll is not on record, the applicant has admittedly been in custody since 24.05.2022. Investigation in the matter is complete. Multiple chargesheets have been filed. Supplementary chargesheet dated 22.08.2022 has been filed against some of the accused, including the applicant, under sections 406/409/402/174A IPC.

3. Charges were framed against the applicant vide order dated 25.02.2023 only under sections 406/174A IPC; and the learned trial court was pleased to discharge the applicant insofar as the offences under sections 409/420 IPC are concerned.

4. Mr. Mohit Mathur, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that as evidenced by the Forensic Audit Report dated 15/21.11.2017 of the company as obtained by the Investigating Officer, and as also summarised in the status report filed in the matter, Rs.75 crores are alleged to have been siphoned-off from the company. Although, according to the forensic audit report, certain amounts are also alleged to have been siphoned-off the same further shows that the amounts alleged to have been siphoned off also decreased over the years to Rs 74 crore, implying thereby that certain amounts were repaid to the investors.

5. Mr. Mathur learned Senior Counsel submits, that as seen in the chargesheet, there were 08 shareholders of the company, each holding 12.5% of the shareholding; and, of the 08 shareholders, 07 have been arrayed as accused in the matter; and 03 of them viz. Krishan Kumar (applicant's father), Ankit Gupta and Ram Chander have already been admitted to regular bail by various orders of the Co-ordinate Bench of this court. Copies of the bail orders have been annexed with the petition.

6. Mr. Mathur submits, that though in each of the said cases, the court was pleased to grant regular bail subject to the person concerned depositing Rs.10 crores in court towards the amounts alleged to have been siphoned-off, in the present case, the applicant simply does not have the resources and wherewithal to deposit such money in court. Senior counsel further submits that asking the applicant to deposit an amount in excess of his resources, will amount to unreasonable denial of bail; but the applicant is ready and willing to fulfill any other condition of bail, to secure his presence at the trial.

7. Senior counsel urges the court to consider, that other things apart, investigation in the matter is over; that chargesheet has been filed; that at the stage of framing charge, the learned trial court has been pleased to frame charges against the applicant only under sections 406/174A which attracts a maximum punishment of imprisonment of 03 years; and admittedly, the applicant has already been in judicial custody for about 1 year 2 months, as of now.

8. Based on the aforesaid factual narration as also predicated upon the law on parity coupled with the fact that the charges are now framed under Section 406 IPC, learned Senior Counsel submits that the Applicant is entitled to regular bail. Learned Senior Counsel also submits that the offences as alleged are purely economic in nature and primarily based on documentary evidence, the same having been seized by the EOW, nothing further needs to be elicited from the Applicant and therefore, the Applicant can be enlarged on regular bail.

9. Per Contra, Ms. Priyanka Dalal, Learned APP for the State on the other hand contends that the supplementary charge sheet in itself notes that the general public was lured by its Director in the year 2006