IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Gita Gopi, J.
Pravinchandra Harilal Shah – Applicant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
R/Criminal Misc.Application (For Regular Bail – After Chargesheet) No. 3332 of 2024
Decided On : 04-09-2024
Bail - Criminal Procedure Code - Sections 439, GPID Act - The court discussed the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and the GPID Act, emphasizing the need to protect depositors' interests and the implications of the applicant's conduct on bail eligibility.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant sought bail in connection with multiple serious charges, including fraud and breach of trust, related to a financial scheme that allegedly defrauded numerous investors.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the applicant's release on bail could jeopardize the ongoing investigation and the recovery of funds owed to numerous victims, given the substantial amount involved and the applicant's lack of cooperation.
Issues: Whether the applicant should be granted bail considering the serious nature of the allegations, the amount involved, and the potential risk of flight.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the applicant's conduct and the significant financial implications for the victims warranted denial of bail, as releasing him could hinder the investigation and recovery efforts.
Result: The application for bail is rejected.
ORDER :
Gita Gopi, J.
1. Present application under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, is filed by the applicant with a prayer of bail in connection with the FIR No.11196010230014 of 2023 registered with DCB Police Station, Vadodara City, Vadodara dated 21/09/2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 507, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Gujarat Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 2003 (for short ‘the GPID Act”).
2. Ms. Krupa Soni, learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the applicant is authorized signatory of the registered company under the Company Act namely Suth Commerce Pvt. Ltd. having its Identity No.U74999GJ2018PTC100637, Pan No.AAJDCS7630L, having its registered office at 98, Ramdevnagar Society, Bapod, Vadodara and also having certificate of incorporation given by the State Government. Main function of the company is to finance in the share bazaar and to make MOU regarding investor’s funds and impress upon the investors by giving security cheques.
3. Ms. Soni, learned advocate submitted that original complainant and other investors used to invest their funds in share markets and for those funds, the original complainant and other investors time to time would receive interest and they have received more money than the principal amount which they have invested. Ms. Soni, learned advocate submitted that despite receiving regular interest and the returns, taking advantage of the recession which had come in the corporate sector and business world because of Covid-19 Pandemic, the complainant and others demanded more money in lieu of security cheques given by the company and thereby started threatening the applicant accused. Ms. Soni, learned advocate submitted that on 09/05/2023, the applicant wrote complaint against the original complainant and other investors to the Police Commissioner, Hon’ble Home Minister, Human Rights Commission, District Collector and Police Inspector, Panigate Police Station and pursuant to that, inquiry was made.
4. Ms.Soni, learned advocate submitted that the applicant is in fact a victim and after filing of complaint on 18/05/2023, the applicant was kidnapped and was threaten to return money. The applicant had lodged a complaint against investors in Karelibaug Police Station and they were arrested pursuant to the complaint lodged by the applicant and the matter was thereafter settled by taking an undertaking from the parties by the Police Officer. Ms.Soni, learned advocate submitted that criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are also pending before the concerned court.
5. Ms. Soni, learned advocate submitted that no case could be drawn against the applicant who is senior citizen aged about 73 years as he has not committed any offence in view of regular payment of interest and the returns on their investment and that there would not be any case of alluring investors as was informed investment and, thus, there could not be any case of cheating or committing breach of trust. Ms. Soni, learned advocate further stated that taking into consideration the health issues of the applicant, if released on bail, he would be in a position to repay the money.
6. Ms. Soni, learned advocate has relied upon the decisions of Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40, Manish Sisodia vs. Director of Enforcement in Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP No.8781 of 2024 with SLP (Criminal) No.8772 of 2024 and order of this Court dated 05/05/2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.3388 of 2021 in case of Dineshkumar Radanji Gadhvi vs. State of Gujarat.
7. Learned APP submitted that the applicant has been arrested on 21/09/2023 and the complaint was against the present applicant and two other persons where the original amount alleged to have been defrauded was noted as Rs.6,70,76,251.50 but after regular inquiry and investigation as per the provisions of the GPID Act, learned APP sub
The court established that the severity of financial crimes and the potential for flight are critical factors in bail considerations under the Criminal Procedure Code.
The main legal point established is that the proper maintenance of ledger accounts and absence of evidence of inducement of investors can be considered in granting bail in financial fraud cases.
Entrustment of investor funds creates a basis for criminal breach of trust allegations; economic offences involving large-scale fraud necessitate close scrutiny and denial of bail.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's consideration of the provisions of the GPID Act in granting bail and ensuring repayment to the depositors.
Bail cannot be granted when there is substantial evidence of fraud, a significant flight risk, and a history of similar offenses by the petitioner.
The court considered the duration of custody, progress of trial, and principles of parity and Supreme Court guidelines for granting bail for certain offences in deciding to grant bail to the petition....
The court balanced the right to personal liberty with the need for the accused's presence at trial, emphasizing that continued custody should be based on the risk of interference in the administratio....
The court held that the age and health of the applicants, along with the nature of the allegations, justified granting bail despite serious charges under economic offences.
The delay in trial, seriousness of economic offences, and the larger interest of the public are crucial factors in determining bail applications for serious economic offences.
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.