Neetu Devi vs. State Of Himachal Pradesh - (High Court of Himachal Pradesh) (31 May 2024)

Mere filing of report, under Section 173 (2) of CrPC before the competent court of law and filing of repeated bail applications, does not entitle the applicant for grant of bail

MANU/HP/0899/2024

Criminal

Applicant has filed the present application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC'), with a prayer to release her, on bail, in case FIR, registered with Police Station under Sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC') and Sections 21 and 23 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Scheme Act, 2019 ('Act'). The applicant has sought the relief of bail, on the ground that she has been arrested by the police, in the said case, whereas, she has no involvement in the commission of the alleged offence.

The applicant is stated to be Co-Director and authorized signatory in five companies, in which, QFX Trade Limited has transacted crores of rupees, out of the amount, which was deposited by the poor investors. Not only this, the applicant has also promoted the schemes of QFX, alongwith main accused-Rajinder Kumar Sood and other Directors.

Releasing the applicant on bail will also give a wrong signal in the society that after duping the poor investors, for crores of rupees, the applicant is still moving freely in the society. Even otherwise, in the economic offences, the Court has to see the seriousness of the offence. The apprehensions, which have been expressed by the police, at this stage, cannot be said to be unfounded.

Mere filing of report, under Section 173 (2) of CrPC before the Competent Court of Law and filing of repeated bail applications, do not entitle the applicant for grant of bail. In the facts of present case, the present bail application is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly.

Tags : BAIL RELEASE LEGALITY