AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
19 paragraphs · 362 wordsGoutam Bhaduri, J
This is the third bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The first bail application was dismissed on 17/01/2017 vide M.Cr.C. No.7950/2016.
The second bail application was dismissed on 05/07/2017 vide M.Cr.C. No.4528/2017.
The applicant has preferred this application for grant of bail as she is arrested in connection with Crime No. 72/16 registered in Police Station
Basantpur, District Rajnandgaon for offence punishable under section 409, 420 r/w 34 of IPC, Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and Section
10 of CG Protection of Depositors Interest Act, 2005.
As per the prosecution case, on 27/06/2016 a report was made by the complainant Smt. Yogita Shukla against the Directors/Chairman of J.S.V.
Developers India Limited, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal that the applicant allured different persons and collected amount with assurance to return the same
with high interest and money was collected from different villagers and when the maturity time came, applicant's company was closed and all the
persons who were engaged in this matter fled away and thereby the aforesaid offence was committed.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that out of 85 witnesses 25 have been examined and they have not stated anything against the present
applicant, therefore, the applicant may be released on bail.
Learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail.
At this stage appreciating the statement of the witnesses will amount to deciding the case on merits while hearing the bail. Considering the fact that
the applicant was one of the directors of the company and what is the role played by the applicant can only be evaluated after the statement of the
witnesses and further taking into that the money has been drained out from the downtrodden people, who were allured to pay the amount in the
company, with an assurance of high return but instead the company fled away. It appears that the white collar crime was committed with all due
diligence. In view of this, I do not find any change of circumstances to reconsider this third bail application.
Accordingly, the third bail application is dismissed. However, the trial Court is requested to expedite the trial.