POOJA TANDON Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. 1. The applicant has been arrested in connection with Crime No.596/2015 registered at Police Station Supela, District Durg ( C.G.) for alleged commission of offences under Section 420, 409, 120-B/34 of IPC, Section 10 of Protection of Depositors Interest Act, 2005 (for short 'the Act of 2005'), Section 45 of RBI Act and Section 3, 4, 5, 6 of Chit Fund Act.

(2.) Prosecution case is that the present applicant and co-accused being Directors of the Chit Fund Company, circulated an investment scheme in the public luring intending investors to invest in the company extending false assurance of high return / double of the investment within a short period. Induced by such false assurance of high return, it is alleged that about 2695 persons were involved and 6417 accounts were opened in which more than Rs.20 Crores were invested by large number of investors in the hope of getting high return as assured but the appellant, one of the accused, acting in conspiracy with other accused Directors, had no intention to return the money to the investors and the amount collected by way of investment was utilised for the purposes of purchasing land, houses and real estate properties in their own name and larger portion of the property so acquired was transferred to a developer namely Maa Sharda Developers. It is alleged that by such deceitful act, acting in criminal breach of trust, huge amount was collected in the name of chit fund scheme by the applicant and other Directors of the investment company.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant would argue that the allegations against the applicant of she involved in cheating is baseless and merely because, she happened to be one of the Directors, it cannot be said that any breach was committed by her and she was involved in any such conspiracy. It is argued that the investment scheme was openly floated and known to every investors. It is also submitted that it is not a case where no steps were taken towards implementation of the scheme but the scheme, as disclosed to all intending investors, was to purchase properties, develop houses, earning high profits and giving benefits to the investors. If the investors could not be paid back amount assured, that by itself, without anything more, would not amount to commission of offence as alleged. Further submission is that the applicant has been arrested way back on 03/10/2015 and charge sheet has also been filed. Even after lapse of more than 5 years and 5 months, till date, trial has not been concluded nor it is likely to be concluded early as out of 109 witnesses, only 22 witnesses have been examined so far and the speed with which trial is taking place, particularly in the pandemic situation, it is not likely to be concluded early. He would next submit that the applicant has undergone pre-trial detention of more than 5 years which is more than half of the sentence which could be awarded under Section 10 of the Act of 2005. This is far more than the minimum sentence which could be awarded in the alleged commission of offence. It is further argued that the maximum sentence which could be awarded for other offences is also not punishable with any minimum sentence. Last but not the least, learned counsel prays for grant of bail on the ground that the applicant is a lady and was made Director, though she was not an active Director of the company. She is 48 years of age and she has a son to maintain. One of the co-accused Sindhu Singhare who is identically situated as the present applicant as one of the Directors, has been granted bail by the Supreme Court taking into consideration that she is a lady and has children. Therefore, the applicant may also be granted bail at this stage.