Hilal Ahmad Mir Vs. Anti-Corruption Bureau and Ors. - (High Court of Jammu and Kashmir) (19 Oct 2020)

Economic offences are required to be dealt with strictly especially in the matters relating to grant of bail

MANU/JK/0366/2020

Criminal

In present matter, the J&K State Co-operative Bank Ltd. (JKSCBL) sanctioned a loan in the amount of Rs. 250 crores without obtaining field report, balance sheet, profit and loss statement, PAN Number, income tax returns, constitution of the Society including its byelaws and Board resolution etc. and also without securing the loan amount by way of taking sufficient collateral security. As per the FIR, the Chairman of JKSCBL in conspiracy with the Petitioner herein, sanctioned and released the loan amount by flouting all the rules and regulations of the Bank. The FIR disclosed commission of offences under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of Jammu & Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 and offences under Section 465, 467, 468, 471 read with 120-B of Ranbir Penal Code (RPC).

First bail application of the Petitioner was rejected by the learned trial Court vide its order and his second bail application came to be rejected by the same Court. Feeling aggrieved of the aforesaid orders of the learned trial Court, the Petitioner has filed the instant application before this Court for grant of bail in his favour.

In the instant case, the learned Special Judge, Anti-corruption, Kashmir, Srinagar, has rejected the earlier bail applications of the Petitioner on two occasions. The question that arises for consideration is whether or not successive bail applications will lie before this Court. The law on this issue is very clear that, if an earlier application was rejected by an inferior Court, the superior Court can always entertain the successive bail application.

It is manifest that, the rejection of a bail application by Sessions Court does not operate as a bar for the High Court in entertaining a similar application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) on the same facts and for the same offence. The instant bail application is held to be maintainable.

It is a settled position of law that, grant of bail is a rule whereas its refusal is an exception. The question whether bail should be granted in a case has to be determined on the basis of the facts and circumstances of that particular case. There can be no strait jacket formula or settled rules for exercise of discretion but the discretion to grant bail in the case of a non-bailable offence has to be exercised in accordance with the rules and principles laid down by the Code of Criminal Procedure and various judicial precedents. There cannot be a set formula for considering the plea of bail of an accused. It all depends upon the facts and circumstances relevant to the case.

The allegations against the Petitioners are very serious in nature and some of the offences disclosed against the Petitioner carry punishment of imprisonment up to 10 years. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner along with other co-conspirators have defrauded the JKSCBL by a huge amount of Rs. 223 crores and at this stage, it cannot be stated that the allegations against the Petitioner are without any substance. It is a settled law that, at the time of consideration of bail application, it is neither necessary nor desirable to have an in-depth analysis of the material on record. The material on record, however, does show that there is a genuine case against the Petitioner and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge.

The question arises as to whether the petitioner can be denied the concession of bail, particularly when he is yet to be proved guilty and the trial is yet to commence. So far as the instant case is concerned, it is clearly stated in the challan that investigation into the case has not culminated as yet. It cannot be said that the investigation of the case has been completed. Present Court cannot lose sight of the fact that, the investigating agency is going to file an additional charge sheet. Therefore, Petitioner's presence in the custody may be necessary for further investigation.

Even otherwise, Petitioner is alleged to be involved in economic offences. As per observations of the Supreme Court in Nimmagadda Prasad vs. Central Bureau of Investigation case, the economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The Court has observed that, the economic offence having deep rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to financial health of the country.

Economic offences are required to be dealt with strictly especially in the matters relating to grant of bail. The grant of bail in such cases, particularly when the whole conspiracy is still under investigation, would be detrimental to the public interest as well as to the interest of the State. The Court has to strike a balance between the rights of the accused to his liberty and the interest of the society. It would be inappropriate to grant the concession of bail to the Petitioner keeping in view the seriousness of allegations against him and the public interest. The Petitioner cannot be released on bail at this stage. The Anti-Corruption Bureau is, however, directed to complete the investigation and file the supplementary charge sheet as early as possible. Petition dismissed.

Relevant : Nimmagadda Prasad vs. Central Bureau of InvestigationMANU/SC/0485/2013

Tags : ECONOMIC OFFENCE BAIL REJECTION