Sharad Nagre vs. State

Facts

This case involves a bail application filed by Sharad Nagre under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. The FIR was registered based on a complaint from Allahabad Bank alleging a fraud involving forged cheques. Three cheques, purportedly from Amity University, were presented for encashment. Two cheques, for Rs. 2,50,30,600/- and Rs. 2,70,30,400/-, were honoured and credited to N.S. Infrastructure and Maa Tapit Manav Sewa Sansthan, respectively. The applicant's wife is a partner in N.S. Infrastructure, and the applicant's mobile number is registered for this company. The amounts were subsequently diverted to five shell companies. A third cheque was found to be forged. The prosecution alleges the applicant is the kingpin and a major beneficiary, having received Rs. 42,26,600/- as his share. The applicant claims he is a victim and the amount retained was merely the GST component.

Held

The Court held that the applicant has not made out a case for grant of bail. The prosecution's case is that three forged cheques, not released to the customer, were presented for encashment, with substantial amounts credited to N.S. Infrastructure and Maa Tapit Manav Sewa Sansthan. The applicant is alleged to be the main beneficiary, with his wife being a partner and his mobile number registered for these companies. The amounts were then diverted to shell companies to obscure the money trail. The Court noted that some co-accused are absconding. Merely because some recovery has been made or that two co-accused have been granted bail does not automatically entitle the applicant to bail, especially given the prosecution's case that the applicant is the major beneficiary and appears to be the kingpin. The Court emphasized that economic offences strike at the root of the economy and must be dealt with severely, citing Supreme Court judgments in State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal, Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI, and Tarun Kumar v. Enforcement Directorate, which classify economic offences as a separate category requiring a different approach in bail matters due to their deep-rooted conspiracies and impact on public funds and national financial health. The application was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to bail in FIR No.0018/2020 registered under Sections 420/468/471/120-B IPC, considering the gravity of economic offences and the applicant's alleged role as kingpin and major beneficiary? (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments: The investigation is complete, and a charge-sheet has been filed. Accounts of N.S. Infrastructure and N.S. Construction are attached, with a recovery of approximately Rs. 50 lakhs from N.S. Infrastructure, exceeding the amount attributed to the applicant. Recovery has also been made from Maa Tapit Manav Sewa Sansthan. The applicant claims to be a victim, lured by a co-accused to deposit cheques to show increased turnover for loan generation. The Rs. 42,26,600/- retained was the GST component. The applicant has been in custody since July 29, 2023, and co-accused Amit Aggarwal and Vinod Kumar Yadav, who allegedly withdrew cash, have been granted bail. Respondent's arguments: The entire fraud is yet to be unearthed. The applicant was a major beneficiary of the two encashed cheques, with the amounts siphoned off to shell companies to eliminate the money trail. The applicant appears to be the kingpin, and his role is distinct from co-accused Amit Aggarwal and Vinod Kumar Yadav, who acted at the applicant's instance or had different roles. Therefore, the applicant cannot claim parity with them.