While granting bail to two men accused of a multi-crore scam, the Delhi High Court recently observed that the magnitude of the offence cannot be the only criterion for denial of bail.
Justice Subramonium Prasad observed,
“The object of bail is to secure the presence of the accused at the time of trial; this object is, thus, neither punitive nor preventative, and a person who has not been convicted should only be kept in custody if there are reasons to believe that they might flee from justice or tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.”
Background
The petitioners sought regular bail in a crime registered in the Economic Offences Wing Police Station under Section 406, 420, 409, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The accused-petitioner are the Directors and Promoters of one IMPEX Pvt Ltd., alleged of committing cheating and fraud. It is alleged that they promised a 200% return within one year on investments.
The complainant had invested an amount of Rs. 9,00,000/- while his friends had also invested some amount in the proposed investment plan. It was promised that the installments to the investors on the 10th of every month. However, for the first three months, no installment was made. On inquiry, it was told to the investors that the Company’s account was frozen.
The money has not been returned to date, and the accused are avoiding his calls.
While the anticipatory bail of the petitioner accused was pending, he was arrested, rendering it infructuous. Since December…
