The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted interim bail to a man accused in case of cheating and forgery for embezzlement of funds to the tune of Rs 4.90 crore. (Vipin Kumar Dua v Union Territory of Chandigarh)
The Bench compromising Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice K.M. Joseph asked for the counter reply from the respondents and said that, “considering the nature of accusation against the petitioner and the stage of proceedings, in our view the petitioner is entitled to interim bail, we therefore direct that the petitioner shall be produced before the trial court within 2days and the trial court shall release him on interim bail subject to such condition as the trial court deems appropriate. The benefit of interim bail shall be available to the petitioner wherein the pendency of the this SLP.”
The Supreme Court said that, “list this SLP for disposal on 1st July 2021, in the meantime the counsel for the complainant as well as the state have liberty to file an affidavit as response within 4 weeks and rejoinder within 2weeks thereafter.”
The present petition has been filed by AOR Sunil Fernandes challenging the order passed by High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh who had rejected the bail filed under 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the ground that it is socio-economic issue which is serious nature of accusation and the petitioner is likely to tamper with evidences.
The FIR was filed by the Managing Director of M/s Supreme Securities Limited at Police Station North, Chandigarh under the section 408,420,120-B and 467, 468, 471 of IPC were added later on against the petitioner, Branch Manager of M/s Supreme Securities Ltd. who had Forex and Currency Exchange Business in collusion with other employees/co-accused and misappropriated and embezzled an amount to the tune of Rs. 4.90 Cr. by manipulating the books of accounts of the said company. After the investigation on the said FIR, the petitioner was arrested in September 2020, and a charge sheet was filed against him.
The petitioner while denying all the accusation submitted that he had made complaints to RBI and Enforcement Directorate highlighting the various illegalities and violations of the Foreign Exchange Regulations and Anti Money Laundering guidelines being committed by the M/s Supreme Securities Limited.
The petitioner states that accusations of embezzlement of huge sums of money have been levelled against the petitioner without any documentary proof. The Petitioner is alleged to be involved in forgery of stamps which were alleged to have been recovered from his house but no such recovery of stamps was made in search of his house at first, but recovered at the second time from the garage.
Further the Petitioner while quoting the case Arnesh Kumar v State of Bihar 2014 submitted that the arrest was made illegally in breach of the statutory provision of Section 41A of Criminal Procedure. On the other-hand the Public Prosecutor submitted the discrepancies as per the written statement of petitioner and actual stock as per physical verification.
However, the High court concerning about the society had held that “Socio-economic offences have deep noted conspiracy affecting the moral fibre of society and causing irreparable harm and the same have to be viewed seriously.”
Read Also: Delhi HC rebukes Delhi govt for making false claims to media on operational beds
The Punjab & Haryana High Court while dismissing the bail had held that,
“the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of accusation and prima facie evidence against the petitioner showing his involvement in the commission of the alleged offenses, serious nature of the offenses involving fraudulent transactions regarding the exchange of foreign currency affecting the national economy as well besides the complainant, the quantum of the sentence which conviction any entail, the likelihood of the petitioner absconding, intimidating the witnesses and/or tampering with evidence, the danger of course of justice being thwarted by grant of bail and also the fact that the trial can be ordered to be expedited by issuing appropriate directions for expeditious conclusion thereof, but without in any manner expressing any opinion on merits of the case as the same may seriously prejudice either of the parties, I am of the considered view that the petitioner does not deserve grant of regular bail.”