Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Right to Be Considered for Promotion, Not a Right to Promotion: Supreme Court Clarifies Eligibility for Retrospective Promotion    |     Inherent Power of Courts Can Recall Admission of Insufficiently Stamped Documents: Supreme Court    |     Courts Cannot Substitute Their Opinion for Security Agencies in Threat Perception Assessments: J&K High Court Directs Reassessment of Political Leader's Threat Perception    |     Service Law | Violation of Natural Justice: Discharge Without Notice or Reason: Gauhati High Court Orders Reinstatement and Regularization of Circle Organizers    |     Jharkhand High Court Quashes Family Court Order, Reaffirms Jurisdiction Based on Minor’s Ordinary Residence in Delhi    |     Ex-Serviceman Status Ceases After First Employment in Government Job: Calcutta High Court Upholds SBI’s Cancellation of Ex-Serviceman's Appointment Over False Declaration of Employment    |     Maxim Res Ipsa Loquitur Applies When State Instrumentalities Are Directly Responsible: Delhi High Court Orders MCD to Pay ₹10 Lakhs Compensation for Death    |     Wilful Avoidance of Service Must Be Established Before Passing Ex Parte Order Under Section 126(2) CrPC: Patna High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Maintenance Order    |     MP High Court Imposes Rs. 10,000 Costs for Prolonging Litigation, Upholds Eviction of Petitioners from Father's Property    |     When Detention Unnecessary Despite Serious Allegations of Fraud Bail Should be Granted: Kerala HC    |     Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Relocation Alone Cannot Justify Transfer: Supreme Court Rejects Plea to Move Case from Nellore to Delhi, Orders Fresh Probe    |     Punjab & Haryana HC Double Bench Upholds Protection for Married Partners in Live-In Relationships, Denies Same for Minors    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     Smell of Alcohol in Post-Mortem Insufficient to Establish Intoxication: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Liability of Insurance Company in Motor Accident Case    |     No Grounds for Transfer: Free Bus Fare for Women in Telangana Reduces Travel Burden: Telangana High Court Rejects Wife's Petition to Transfer Divorce Case    |    

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

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


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

 

Similar News