SUNIL SHAKT Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 439 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Criminal Procedure Code ) for grant of bail in case FIR No.100/97 PS Greater Kailash-I under section 409 read with section 120 8 Indian Penal Code. Prosecution allegations in brief are : that petitioner was the Managing Director of M/s.Fintra Systems Limited, a non-banking finance company engaged in para-banking and related financial activities. The petitioner's through advertisements, invited deposits from public assuring lucrative returns; carried away by the representations hundreds of investors deposited money. The petitioner issued cheques towards payment of interest and/or return of principal amounts. These cheques were dishonoured. On the basis of a complaint filed by one of the investors alleging embezzlement, misappropriation and siphoning off the funds,above noted case was registered. During investigations it was found that petitioner in pursuance of a criminal conspiracy received public funds, misappropriated them through personal bank accounts, created non-functional firms like Fintra Resorts Limited, Fintra Agro Forests Limited, Fintra Capital Services Limited and Fintra Securities Limited. None of these companies carried out any constructive business activity but they were in fact means to siphon off the funds collected from the investors. The company even did not maintain proper accounts and records of the investors or the invested amounts.During investigations several incriminating documents were recovered and seized by the police.After investigations were completed challan was filed against the petitioner and other co-conspirators. On the basis of the above material on 5/2/2000 charge under section 409 read with section 120 B Indian Penal Code was framed stating that during 1995-97 petitioner along with others in pursuance of a criminal conspiracy committed breach of trust of Rs.68 lakhs approx of Mrs. Poonam Saxena and others, and prosecution evidence is being recorded.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have been taken through record.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner is in custody since 14/3/1997 i.e.for the last about 3 years; he was released on interim bail for making arrangement to repay the investors but he could not succeed despite serious endeavour as properties of the company could not be sold because of the order passed in the Company Petition wherein the petitioner was restrained from disposing of the properties. It was argued that under Section 29 Criminal Procedure Code. the Magistrate can sentence an accused maximum upto three years, the petitioner has already undergone this sentence: that the petitioner cannot be kept detained behind bars for indefinite period without substantial progress in the trial and that the petitioner's fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India for speedy trial is being violated. It was also argued that the petitioner is suffering from severe tuberculosis and was referred to DDU with chest pain, no specialised treatment of the disease is being provided to him; that his condition is deteriorating day by day and that petitioner has two school going, daughters aged 6 and 3 years and in the absence of the petitioner their upbringing is being adversely affected.