Praveen Kumar Agarwal Vs Central Bureau of Investigation (Delhi High Court)
Bail granted on the basis that there is no substantial allegation that the accused failed to comply with any such notices during the period of investigation. No material has been placed on record to establish any change of circumstances on the basis of which their arrest could have been considered
Facts-
The FIR was registered against two companies, namely PGF Limited [“PGF”] and PACL Limited [“PACL”], and their officers. The FIR was registered pursuant to the directions of the Supreme Court in PGF Limited and Others vs. Union of India and Another, which revealed that the aforesaid companies were carrying out a collective investment scheme [“CIS”] in the garb of sale and development of agricultural land.
The alleged modus operandi of the accused was to seek investment in land without the companies having ownership of the land. Sample checking of the land allotted by PGF to its customers revealed that the land was held, not in the name of the company, but in the name of other individuals.
The concerned companies promised investors a fixed return on the land and created documentation to show a reverse sale of land by the investors to the companies, repayments being routed through several associate companies of PGF and PACL. None of the present applicants were named in the FIR.
It is stated in the supplementary charge sheet that the investment plans offered by PGF and PACL were in the nature of a CIS defined under Section 11AA of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 and regulated by the Securities And Exchange Board of India (Collective Investment Schemes) Regulations, 1999. As the companies had not complied with the aforesaid Act and Regulations, the Securities and Exchange Board of India [“SEBI”] had passed orders against them.
Six bail application are preferred here.
Conclusion-
Held that this case concerns allegations of grave economic offences, with a very large number of victims. However, as noted in the judgments cited above, this sole consideration cannot be dispositive of the applications for bail. Considering the allegations against the accused and the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the present applicants are entitled to grant of bail.
Bail granted on the basis that there is no substantial allegation that the accused failed to comply with any such notices during the period of investigation. No material has been placed on record to establish any change of circumstances on the basis of which their arrest could have been considered necessary a few weeks thereafter, particularly given the prolonged period of investigation.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. These six applications have been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [“CrPC”], for grant of bail in connection with FIR No. RCBD1/2014/E/0004/CBI/BS & FC, registered on 19.02.2014, in Police Station Central Bureau of Investigation [“CBI”], under Sections 120B/409/411/420/467/468/ 471/474 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”] and Sections 4/5 read with Section 6 of the Prize Chit and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 [“PCMCS Act”]. As the six applications arise out of the same FIR, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The present applications relate to following six accused:
