[Maharashtra Protection Of Depositors Act] Seriousness Of Accusation No Reason To Deny Bail To Undertrial If Half Sentence Served: High Court
The Bombay High Court granted bail to a businessman accused of duping investors of crores of rupees under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999, observing that gravity of his offence cannot be a reason to deny him benefit of section 436-A of the CrPC. Under the section, an accused who has undergone one half of the maximum...
The Bombay High Court granted bail to a businessman accused of duping investors of crores of rupees under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999, observing that gravity of his offence cannot be a reason to deny him benefit of section 436-A of the CrPC.
Under the section, an accused who has undergone one half of the maximum imprisonment he can be awarded for the alleged offence, would be eligible for release on bail, except for special reasons to be recorded in writing.
The bench rejected the prosecution's contention that the accused was involved in a serious offence for duping investors of crores, the police hasn't found any property of his that can be attached, and therefore bail should be denied.
Relying on SC's judgement in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr, Justice Bharati Dangre observed, "In the light of the aforesaid pronouncement... I do not think that the seriousness of the accusation would deny him the benefit flowing from the said section, when his case squarely falls within sub-section (1) of Section 436A, on having undergone more than half of the period of maximum imprisonment…The applicant deserves his release on bail."
In the case at hand the accused had undergone imprisonment of over four years and the maximum punishment that could be imposed on him was seven years. He was facing charges under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC read with Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999. The crime was registered at Badlapur Police station in 2018.
While the prosecution alleged that the total investment with the assured interest has been worked out to be Rs.1,07,95,000, accused Sagar Tote's Advocate Akshay Bafna stated that he had refunded Rs. 25,22,300. In the second FIR out of the total amount of over Rs. 4.73 crore assured to 82 investors, Rs. 2.75 crore was returned.
Regarding the applicability of section 436-A of the CrPC, Bafna relied on the judgements of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, the decision in case of Bhim Singh Vs. Union of India and the decision in case of Hussainara Khatoon and Others (IV) Vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna.
Justice Dangre agreed with Bafna's contention and granted bail.
Case Title: Sagar Vilas Tote vs. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 381
Click Here To Read/Download Order