Naresh Tikamchand Jain vs. State Of Maharashtra

Facts

The petitioners, Anil O. Khandelwal (CFO of Cox and Kings Limited - CKL) and Naresh Tikamchand Jain (Internal Auditor of CKL), sought regular bail in connection with C.R. No.98 of 2021 registered by the Economic Offences Wing, Mumbai. The case involves allegations of cheating and criminal breach of trust concerning CKL's default in repaying short-term loans of Rs. 10 Crores each to M/s. Kurlon Enterprises, totaling Rs. 20 Crores, advanced between March 2019 and August 2019. The prosecution alleges falsification of accounts and diversion of funds by the accused, including the petitioners. Both petitioners have been incarcerated since January 10, 2024. Charge-sheet has been filed. The petitioners argue parity with co-accused who have been granted bail.

Held

The Court allowed both Bail Applications, directing the release of the applicants on bail. The Court found that the applicants had made out a case for bail, considering their long period of incarceration and prima facie observations. The Court noted that the principal case of the complainant was a default in repayment of loan amounts, which could be pursued in civil law as it is a commercial dispute based on documents like the Deed of Guarantee and Inter Corporate Deposit Agreement. The Court also observed that the complainant entity advanced substantial amounts based on CKL's balance sheet and credit rating, and it was the complainant's duty to conduct appropriate due diligence. Regarding allegations of kickbacks, the Court found sufficient material indicating that amounts received by Applicant Naresh Tikamchand Jain were professional charges and fees, on which taxes were paid, and thus receipt of such amounts could not be a sole factor to deprive him of bail. The Court emphasized the right to speedy trial as a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution, referencing Supreme Court judgments like Javed Gulam Nabi Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. The Court reiterated that its observations were limited to granting bail and the trial would proceed uninfluenced by this order. The applicants were directed to furnish a PR bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- each with sureties, report to the Investigating Officer when called, cooperate with the trial, not leave Maharashtra without permission, surrender their passports, and not influence witnesses or tamper with evidence.

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 nature of the alleged economic offence, and the principle of parity with co-accused who have been granted bail. Petitioner's Arguments: - The applicants have undergone substantial incarceration (over 1 year and 1 month). - The main accused, Ajay Ajit Peter Kerkar, has been granted bail by the Supreme Court (Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl) Nos.10471-10478 of 2024). - Applicant Anil O. Khandelwal was previously granted bail by this Court (Bail Application No. 4222 of 2021) in connection with a different crime (C.R. No.33 of 2020) with similar allegations. - Both applicants have been granted bail by the learned PMLA Special Court on grounds of delay in trial commencement and long incarceration. - The role attributed to the applicants is similar to that of the CFO, and the amounts received by Applicant Naresh Tikamchand Jain were professional charges and fees, on which taxes were paid. - The core dispute is a civil commercial dispute based on loan agreements and guarantees, and the complainant's recourse could be in civil law. - The complainant entity failed to conduct adequate due diligence before advancing loans. Respondent's (State) Arguments: - The applicants are indicted for an economic offence, which is considered an offence against the economy.