Naresh T Jain vs. The State Of Maharashtra

Facts

Two bail applications were filed by Anil O. Khandelwal (CFO of Cox and Kings Limited - CKL) and Naresh Tikamchand Jain (Internal Auditor of CKL) in connection with C.R. No.67 of 2021, registered by the Economic Offences Wing for offences under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including cheating and criminal breach of trust. The complaint was filed by Yes Bank, alleging default in repayment of a loan of Rs. 525 crores obtained by CKL. Both applicants have been incarcerated since February 11, 2022. The prosecution case is that CKL borrowed substantial amounts from various banks and defaulted in repayment, including statutory payments like GST and TDS. A forensic audit indicated widespread diversion of funds received as loans. The charge-sheet alleges falsification of accounts by the applicants in collusion. Anil O. Khandelwal is also accused of diverting funds to companies he was a director of and to bogus companies.

Held

The Court allowed both bail applications. The primary reasoning was based on the principle of parity, considering that the main accused, Ajay Ajit Peter Kerkar, had been granted bail by the Supreme Court, and Anil O. Khandelwal had also been granted bail by this Court in a different matter with similar allegations. The Court also took into account the orders from the PMLA Special Court granting bail to the applicants on grounds of delay in the commencement of trial and their long period of incarceration. The Court noted that while the complicity of the accused would be determined at the trial, the applicants had made out a case for bail based on their long incarceration and the prima facie observations regarding the bank's due diligence. The operative directions included releasing both applicants on bail upon furnishing a Personal Recognizance (PR) Bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- each with sureties, with a provision for provisional cash bail and a period of 4 weeks to furnish sureties. Specific conditions were imposed, including reporting to the Investigating Officer, cooperating with the trial, not leaving the state without permission, surrendering passports, and not influencing witnesses. The Court clarified that these observations were limited to the bail application and the trial would proceed on its merits.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, considering their period of incarceration, the bail granted to the main accused (Ajay Ajit Peter Kerkar) by the Supreme Court, and bail granted to Anil O. Khandelwal by this Court in a different matter? Arguments for the Applicants: The applicants' counsel argued for parity, citing the Supreme Court's order granting bail to the main accused, Ajay Ajit Peter Kerkar, and this Court's order granting bail to Anil O. Khandelwal in a separate case with similar allegations. They also highlighted that the applicants have been granted bail by the PMLA Special Court on grounds of delay in trial commencement and long incarceration. They contended that their further judicial custody is unwarranted as they have cooperated with the investigation. Arguments for the Respondent (State): The learned APP vehemently opposed the grant of bail, submitting that the applicants are indicted for an economic offense, which is considered an offense against the economy of the nation and affects its financial fabric.