IMPORTANT POINT
Bail can be revoked if the granting order is found to be perverse or if new circumstances arise that affect the integrity of the trial, but the principle of parity and the absence of supervening circumstances can justify the continuation of bail.

JUDGEMENT

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN

Heard Mr. M. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. R. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Ms. Linda L Fambawl, learned Public Prosecutor for the state respondent No. 1, and Mr. A.K. Das, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. J. Rohmingthanga, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

2. This application, under Sections 439(2), read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is preferred by the petitioner, namely, Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. for quashing the order, dated 13.06.2024, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Aizawl in Bail Application No. 676/2024, arising out of Crime and Economic Offence P.S. Case No. 03/2024, under Sections 408/419/466/467/468/470/471/477A/120B IPC. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order dated 13.06.2024, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Aizawl had granted bail to the respondent No.2, who was arrested in the aforesaid case.

3. The background facts, leading to filing of the present petition, is adumbrated herein below:-

“One Chanpreet Singh, Business Head, Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. (MMFSL) lodged one FIR with the Officer-In-Charge, Crime and Economic Police Station, Aizwal, Mizoram alleging inter-alia amongst others that during routine verification, they have come across a large scale fraud committed by their Area Business Manager Mr. Jakir Habibur Hussain in sanctioning many vehicle loans at their Aizawl Branch. Then on broader scrutiny of the records they have found Jakir Habibur Hussain and his co-conspirators, H. Lalthankima and Edenthara, had impersonated the official identity of the informant and they had created a fake entity i.e. Mahindra Finance Limited with similar description of his company and executed fraudulent transactions, including cash in crores of rupees, through fake entity set up through his co conspirator. In order to open the said account the accused persons have forged company seal, PAN number, and represented themselves as authorized person of MMFSL, with the common object to gain undue advantage and defraud the MMFSL and public at large. Account statement of the fake account reveals that there was transaction of more than Rs. 80 Crores in the said account within a short span of nearly 3 years.

Upon the said FIR the Officer-In-Charge Crime and Economic Offence P.S. had registered a case, being Case No. 03/2024, under Sections 408/419/466/467/468/470/471/477A /120 B IPC and carried out investigation. Then on completion of investigation, the I.O. had arrested accused Jakir Habibur Hussain and others, including the respondent No.2 and forwarded them to the court. Then after completion of investigation, the I.O. had laid charge sheet against the accused persons to stand trial in the court under the said sections of law, on 25.06.2024.

The respondent No.2, namely, Dr. Madhurjya Sarma, during the pendency of investigation, was arrested and he was granted bail by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge I, Aizawl vide impugned order dated 13.06.2024.”

4. Being highly aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this court by filing the present petition for quashing and setting aside the impugned order, dated 13.06.2024, and contended to allow the petition on the following grounds:-

(i) That, the learned Court had erroneously and illegally granted bail to the respondent No.2 ignoring the established principles of law and without perusing the case diary;

(ii) That, the learned court had taken into account irrelevant materials;

(iii) That, the learned court had not considered the necessity of relevant factors such as custodial interrogation which was necessary in the case;

(iv) That, the learned court had adopted hyper-technical approach;

(v) That, the learned court had failed to take into account that the respondent No.2 had illegally siphoned off crores of money from the petitioner’s company and without his connivance it would have not be possible a