HARSHAD PURSHOTTAM MEHTA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) The applicant is seeking his enlargement on bail in FIR/Crime No.258 of 2014 registered at Amboli Police Station subsequently transferred to Economic Offences Wing for the offences punishable under Sections 406 , 409 , 420 , 465 , 467 , 468 , 471 , 477(a) , 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (' IPC ' for short).

(3.) It may be stated that the applicant had fled multiple applications before the learned Magistrate and also before the learned Sessions Court, which were rejected on merits, principally, on the ground, the crime being economic offence, bail therein, is to be treated differently as it constitutes class apart and is to be visited with a different approach. It is not in dispute that in this case offence alleged against the applicant are economic offences and, therefore, before adverting to the arguments of the learned counsel for the applicant, it may be stated that the Apex Court in the case of Y.S.Jagan Mohan Reddy v. Central Bureau of Investigation AIR 2013 SC 1933 has held thus, "While granting bail, the Court has to keep in mind nature of accusation, nature of evidence in support thereof and that the economic offences having deep rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public monies are to be viewed seriously with different approach."