Bail in economic offences cannot be denied solely due to the nature of the charge; the court must consider individual circumstances and cooperation with the investigation.

JUDGMENT

Poonam A. Bamba, J. (Oral)

1.0. This is an application on behalf of the petitioner namely Brajendra Singh Bhadouriya (A-27) filed through his pairokar/wife Smt. Shashi Devi, under Section 439 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C for the grant of regular bail in FIR No. RCBDI/2014/E/0004/CBI/BS&FC New Delhi dated 19.02.2014.

2.0. It is submitted that the above FIR came to be registered pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 12.03.2013 in Civil Appeal No. 6572 of 2004 in the matter of PGF Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. First charge sheet in the matter was filed on 07.04.2016 and the present petitioner/accused was not named therein, though reference to him appeared in the same. The petitioner had been joining the investigation and cooperating by providing information/documents as sought, from time to time, by the CBI. In the supplementary charge sheet, which was filed on 31.12.2021, the petitioner was named along with other accused persons as accused no. A-27. CBI filed the supplementary charge sheet without arresting the petitioner/accused. The petitioner was summoned by the court pursuant to filing of the supplementary charge sheet. The petitioner had duly appeared before the Ld. Special Judge, CBI and moved a bail application. However subsequently, on his appearance, the petitioner was taken into custody by the court on 27.04.2022, rejecting his bail application. The petitioner continues to be in judicial custody since then.

2.1. It is also submitted that the petitioner had been co-operating with the investigation throughout. No recovery of any incriminating document/material has been made from/at the instance of the petitioner.

2.2. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a government servant and was employed as a Patwari in Tehsil Raun, District Bhind, Madhya Pradesh during the period 2009-11 in the Revenue Department. He is not connected with creation of any alleged forged sale deed as he was neither a witness nor a deed writer nor a beneficiary in any manner whatsoever. He has not received any monetary benefit from any of the accused companies, its directors, employees directly or indirectly. There is no money trail or link connecting the petitioner/accused with the accused companies ; even as per the status report filed by the CBI, the money from Pearl Group came to Janeshwar Das's Company that is, M/s Hariom Build Pro.

2.3. It is also submitted that there are total 447 witnesses cited by CBI ; 182 vide first charge sheet and 265 vide second/supplementary charge sheet. Therefore, there is no possibility of conclusion of the trial in near future.

2.4. Ld. Senior counsel for the petitioner also argued that main accused Chander Bhushan Dhillon, a director of M/s PGF Ltd., who allegedly has been directly involved in the primary offence of raising funds by cheating gullible investors, has already been admitted to bail by Ld. Special Court, CBI vide order dated 16.04.2022. Further, other co-accused persons i.e. A-14, A-20, A-22, A-23, A-24 and A-25 whose role was graver have also been admitted to bail by the Coordinate Bench of this court vide order dated 13.06.2022. The petitioner thus deserves to be released on bail as he stands on a better footing.

2.5. Ld. Senior counsel further submitted that evidence in the present case is documentary in nature and all such documents/sale deeds have already been collected by CBI and as such, there is no question of tampering with the evidence by the petitioner.

2.6. Ld. Senior counsel also submitted that the petitioner has already been discharged in disciplinary proceedings ; the petitioner is a family person having old parents, wife and three daughters and has deep roots in the society. Therefore, he is not a flight risk.

3.0. On the other hand, this application is strongly opposed by the CBI. Ld. Special Public Prosecutor submitted that the present case relates to a ponzi scheme whereby the principal perpetrator companies M/s Pearl Agro