Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Rudhir Sareen, Saurav Vinay Jain, and Kamlesh Hari Kochra, filed separate writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. RC022024A1001 registered by the Economic Offences Wing, Mumbai, for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The FIR alleged that the petitioners, along with others, induced Ratnakar Bank Limited to sanction loans based on forged and fabricated documents, causing wrongful loss to the bank. The petitioners contended that they were innocent, had cooperated with the investigation, and were not required for custodial interrogation. The respondent bank opposed the bail, arguing that the petitioners were involved in a serious economic offence and that their custodial interrogation was necessary to unearth the conspiracy. The court, after hearing both sides, observed that the petitioners had joined the investigation as and when required, and that the investigating officer had not sought their custody. The court also noted that the alleged forged documents were already seized by the investigating agency, and no recovery was to be made from the petitioners. The court held that the mere gravity of the offence is not a ground to deny bail if other factors, such as cooperation with investigation and absence of custodial interrogation, favour the grant of bail. Accordingly, the court allowed the petitions and granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners on certain conditions, including furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 each and one or two sureties, and directing them to attend the investigating officer as and when required.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Anticipatory Bail - Section 438 CrPC - Economic Offences - Petitioners alleged to have induced bank to sanction loans based on forged documents - Court granted anticipatory bail as petitioners cooperated with investigation, no custodial interrogation required, and no recovery was to be made from them - Held that mere gravity of offence is not a ground to deny bail if other factors favour grant (Paras 1-27). B) Prevention of Corruption Act - Offences by Public Servants - Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) - Applicability - Petitioners were not public servants; however, the court did not delve into the applicability of the Act at this stage - Held that the issue can be raised at trial (Para 10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in connection with an FIR registered for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petitions and granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners, directing that in the event of arrest, they be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 each with one or two sureties. Petitioners must attend the investigating officer as and when required and not tamper with evidence.
Law Points
- Anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- Economic offences
- Custodial interrogation
- Cooperation with investigation
- Recovery of documents
