Dr Advay Prashant Hiray vs. The State Of Maharashtra

Facts

This case involves a bail application filed by Advay Prashant Hiray under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The applicant was arrested in connection with C.R. No. I-51 of 2023, registered at Ramjanpura Police Station, Nashik. The FIR was lodged by Gorakh Ramchandra Jadhav, Divisional Officer of N.D.C.C. Bank Ltd., Nashik. The prosecution alleges that various accused individuals, including the applicant, conspired to obtain loans from the bank for a powerloom project. The loans, totaling Rs. 7,46,00,000/-, were allegedly misappropriated and not used for the stated purpose, leading to a due amount of Rs. 31,40,76,000/-. The applicant was arrested on November 15, 2023, and a charge-sheet was filed on February 9, 2024. The applicant contends that the offenses are registered due to political rivalry.

Held

The Court held that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. The reasoning is primarily based on the Supreme Court's pronouncements in Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement. The Court noted that the Supreme Court has reiterated the principle that bail should not be withheld as a punishment and that the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution is paramount. Regarding the apprehension of tampering with evidence, the Court found that the case largely depends on documentary evidence already seized by the prosecution, thus minimizing the risk of tampering. The concern about influencing witnesses can be addressed by imposing stringent conditions. The Court also considered the applicant's submission that the antecedents were a result of political rivalry. The applicant was found not to be at risk of flight. Therefore, the Court ordered the applicant's release on bail, subject to furnishing a Personal Recognizance bond and sureties, reporting to the police station weekly, not tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, attending trial regularly, and surrendering his passport.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to be released on bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, considering the gravity of the alleged offenses (Sections 409, 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120B, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 3 & 4 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999)? Petitioner's Argument: The applicant's counsel argued that the applicant is entitled to bail based on the law laid down by the Supreme Court, particularly in the case of Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement. They emphasized that the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution should not be opposed on the ground of the crime's seriousness if the State cannot ensure it. They also pointed out that the case largely relies on documentary evidence already seized, mitigating the risk of tampering. The applicant also submitted that the antecedents were registered due to political rivalry. Respondent's Argument: The State opposed the bail application, raising concerns about the possibility of tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses. The prosecution case, as detailed in the affidavit, outlines the alleged conspiracy and misappropriation of loan amounts.