Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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

 

Latest Legal News