The Delhi High Court has refused to cancel the bail granted to a Chartered Accountant who has allegedly committed fraud to a senior citizen lady and directed the Trial Court to conclude the trial within 18 months.
The petitioner, a senior citizen was duped by two chartered accountant couples in a case of misappropriation of property. Allegedly, the loan amount of Rs.2,50,00,000/- was misappropriated by the accused and the accused had also fraudulently opened many bank accounts in the Petitioner’s name.
On the basis of FIR filed against the accused, investigation was started and the accused was granted bail by the learned ACMM, Saket Courts, and the same was challenged by the Petitioner herein which was rejected vide Order dated 27.02.2020. The petitioner approached the High Court to cancel the bail granted.
The petitioner contended that the license of the accused was taken away by the Institution of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) and the decision is still pending before the Supreme Court and the licence was not restored.
Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that the aspect of the grant of bail and cancellation of bail stand on different footing as the factors which go into the consideration of an application seeking grant of bail are completely different from the factors that must be considered while hearing an application seeking cancellation of bail on account of the latter involving interference in the personal liberty of the accused that has been duly granted by the lower court.
“Therefore, Appellate Courts must be circumspect while interfering in an Order granting bail,” the Court said.
Noting that the bail was granted with a well-reasoned order, the Court further observed that “In the instant case, the Petitioner seeks not only cancellation of bail but has also appealed against the grant of bail to Respondent No.2. On one hand, in an application for cancellation of bail, conduct subsequent to release on bail and the supervening circumstances alone are relevant, on the other hand, in a petition challenging the grant of bail, all aspects that are relevant while dealing with an application seeking bail continues to be relevant [Refer State of U.P. through CBI v. Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21].
Dismissing the petition, the Court further ordered that “In view of the above, this Court does not deem it fit to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to set aside impugned Orders dated 11.03.2019 and 06.01.2021. However, this Court is cognizant of the fact that the Petitioner is a female senior citizen who has been embroiled in this matter since 2015, and that charges are yet to be framed despite a lapse of three years. This Court, therefore, directs the learned Trial Court to hear arguments on charge and if charges are framed, expeditiously conduct the trial and conclude the same within a period of 18 months year from the date of this Order.”
RITA BHUTANI vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH SHO & ANR.
CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 180
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
