Order 5

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 1
IA Nos. 1/2023 of A-6, 2/2023 of A-5, 3/2023 of A-3,
4/2023 of A-7 & 5/2023 of A-4 in case CT No. 21/2023
Directorate of Enforcement vs M/s Raj Fibres Pvt Ltd & Ors.
ECIR no. ECIR/DLZO/302/2009
(Bail applications of accused no. 3 to 7)
05.09.2023
Present :- Sh. Arun Khatri, Spl. PP alongwith Sh. Sahil
Khurana, Advocate for ED.
> Accused Ram Niwas (A-2) who was the Director
of Raj Fibres Pvt. Ltd. (A-1) had expired and
proceedings against him already abated.
> Accused Kamal Singhal (A-3) & Neeraj Singhal
(A-4) who are also the Directors of Raj Fibres Pvt.
Ltd. (A-1), Vijay Singhal (A-5) with Sh. Neeraj
Dahiya, advocate.
> Accused Revathi Ranjan Roy (A-6) with Sh.
Manish Kumar, advocate.
> Accused Devender Kr. Balani (A-7) with Sh. Vijay
S. Bishnoi, advocate.
These five bail applications are interconnected so are being
disposed off by a common order. These five accused persons
mentioned at Sr. no. 3 to 7 in the complaint lodged by ED were not
arrested at any time. They have come to court on the basis of the
summons issued to them after taking cognizance on the complaint.
Accused no. 6 & 7 are Sr. Citizens.
No reply has been filed on behalf of the ED in respect of
their bail applications. The role of these accused persons in brief is
mentioned in the order dated 27.07.2023 when the cognizance was
taken on the complaint. This fact is not in dispute that they joined
-- 1 of 3 --
2
the investigation as and when directed by the IO. The allegations of
the ED made verbally that they may tamper the evidence, if
released on bail are vague, general and unspecific without any
single attempt made in this regard in the past.
The submissions made on behalf of the ED that these five
accused persons may abscond or may tamper with the evidence or
influence the witnesses is only a vague probability. It is not
justified qua these five accused persons to keep them in custody
when the ED did not opt to arrest them or to recover anything from
them during interrogation etc.
The principle while dealing with the bail application is that
bail is the rule and jail is an exception. Unless there are strong or
atleast prima facie ground available that there is a chance of
tampering with the evidence or influencing the witness, the bail
should not be denied. Most of the evidence collected against these
accused persons is documentary which is already seized by the ED
and it is highly impossible to tamper the same which is in the
custody of the court.
No doubt that economic offence is a different class of
offence and strict view should be taken while entertaining any bail
application but admittedly it is not the rule that the accused charged
with economic offence cannot be released on bail.
If the law laid down by the Supreme Court in case
Amanpreet Singh Vs CBI 2021 SCC Online SC 941 is taken
into consideration, then the accused who was not arrested during
investigation should not be denied bail. In that situation, the merits
of the case qua the role of a particular accused need not be
considered. Supreme Court in this case specifically held that the
accused is entitled to be released on bail as the circumstances of not
being arrested during investigation or not being produced in
-- 2 of 3 --
3
custody itself is sufficient to enlarge such accused on bail because if
the accused was free for many years and was not arrested during
investigation, then suddenly directing his arrest and to be
incarcerated merely because chargesheet has been filed would be
contrary to the governing principles of grant of bail.
Here in the present matter when there are no allegations that
accused did not cooperate during investigation or any attempt was
made by them to influence the witness or tamper with the evidence
as well as the fact that there is no chance of fleeing from the
process of the court in order to hamper the trial, I am of the view
that it is a fit case where the bail applications of all these five
accused persons are required to be allowed without discussing
anything on merits of the allegations against them. Thus, the
interim bail granted to all the five accused No. 3 to 7 is confirmed
till the disposal of the present case. The bail bonds already
furnished are accepted finally. However, the accused persons shall
not contact any prosecution witness nor will give any inducement,
threat or promise to them of any type. The accused persons will not
tamper with any evidence or do anything unlawful which will cause
prejudice to the trial of the case. If the accused persons have not
surrendered their passports, then it should be deposited immediately
whether is valid or expired. In case any accused is not having any
passport, then he has to submit affidavit in this regard.
In view of the above, all the above five bail applications are
disposed off and allowed.
(Ashwani Kumar Sarpal)
Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI)-08, RACC
05.09.2023
-- 3 of 3 --