Bail in cases of economic offences must consider the severity of allegations and prior conduct of the accused, emphasizing potential risks to justice and public interest.

JUDGMENT

Prateek Jalan, J. (Oral)

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