Bail is the Rule, Jail an Exception: Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Accused in Economic Fraud Case

141
0
Share:
tribunal notice bharat College Eviction full Bail Rape RTI Colgate National jurisdiction Bail System Bail Daughter POCSO Transactions Bail tribunal Awards section 8 Disability Statement IAS Child Statement Evidence Parole Equality evidence Divorce Rape Rape Trademark evidence marriage gst Property Merit Answer Key Divorce constitutional Harassment ListCross-Examination Termination Law Law Landlord bail Bail evidence Pregnancy University bank gst bail eviction eviction documents circumstances applicationTenant' Officer business 34 Bail Tax sexual Armed Forces investments service legal child rape property smart jurisdiction property jurisdiction power jurisdiction Absence domain violation Allegations property examination evidence criminal family Notices train principle tax bail club judicial education 148 land dv worldwide property olympics bail trademark

In a significant ruling today, the Delhi High Court granted regular bail to the accused in a high-profile economic fraud case, emphasizing the principle that “bail is the rule and jail an exception.” The judgment, delivered by Hon’ble Justice Amit Mahajan, pertains to FIR No. 194/2020 involving alleged fraudulent activities by a company and its directors.

The accused, a director of M/s Swag Production Private Limited, was implicated in a case involving accusations of cheating investors through deceitful schemes. He was seeking regular bail after spending nine months in custody. The FIR, lodged at the Economic Offences Wing, Delhi, detailed how the company allegedly lured investors with false promises of high returns in feature films, TV commercials, short films, and events.

Justice Mahajan, in his judgment, highlighted the need for a balanced approach in granting bail. He observed, “The right to speedy trial and justice has been recognized as a Fundamental Right,” adding that “the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail.”

The court took into account the applicant’s circumstances, noting that he was not highly educated and had limited involvement in the company’s operations. It was also considered that other co-accused in the case had already been granted bail.

The Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the bail, citing the applicant’s significant role in the company and non-cooperation during the investigation. However, the court found that the case was primarily based on documentary evidence already in the prosecution’s possession, and the further detention of the accused would not serve a significant purpose.

The bail was granted with specific conditions, including residence reporting, travel restrictions, and prohibitions against contacting witnesses or complainants. The court also gave liberty to the State to act if there were any violations.

 Date of Decision: 22nd January, 2024

SUBHASH NAGAR VS STATE

Download Judgment

Share: