Sunder Saini vs. State Of Haryana

Held

The Court dismissed the bail petition. It found that the petitioner was a main promoter and coordinator who played an active role in inducing innocent people to deposit funds totalling Rs. 29,56,91,96,250/-. The Court noted that the investigation was still ongoing, and the company had not filed Income Tax returns or balance sheets since its incorporation. The Court found the petitioner's contention that the investigation was complete to be factually incorrect. It also highlighted that the company had caused a loss to the State exchequer by not paying GST amounting to over Rs. 398 crores, in addition to Income Tax. The Court observed that the petitioner had facilitated the incorporation of other fake companies and was a beneficiary of the deposits, having purchased significant immovable property and having substantial amounts deposited in his and his wife's bank accounts from the company. Given the scale of the alleged fraud, the petitioner's active role, the ongoing investigation, and the pendency of numerous criminal cases across multiple states, the Court concluded that no ground was made out for granting bail pending trial. The petitioner's claim that the case was triable by a Magistrate was implicitly rejected by the gravity of the offenses and the amounts involved.

Facts

The petitioner, Sunder Saini, filed a petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking bail pending trial in FIR No. 358 dated September 8, 2018, registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, and the Haryana Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishment) Act, 2013. The allegations concern Future Maker Life Care Pvt. Ltd., accused of collecting crores of rupees from the public by inducing them to invest in schemes promising high returns, without having any genuine products or manufacturing units. The company allegedly caused significant loss to the government by not paying Income Tax and GST. The petitioner claimed he was merely an investor, not named in the FIR, and had been granted bail in Telangana cases. The State opposed bail, alleging the petitioner was a main promoter who induced the public, coordinated the company's affairs, received huge amounts, and purchased property from commissions. The investigation was ongoing, with approximately 15 criminal cases pending against the petitioner and co-accused across India.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail pending trial given his alleged role as a main promoter and coordinator in a scheme that defrauded the public of approximately Rs. 2956.91 crores, causing a loss of over Rs. 398 crores in GST alone? 2. Whether the petitioner's contention that he is merely an investor and not named in the FIR is sufficient grounds for granting bail, especially when the investigation is ongoing and numerous other cases are pending against him? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that he was not named in the FIR, nothing was to be recovered from him, and a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. had been submitted. He asserted he was only an investor with no role in the company's affairs and had been granted bail in Telangana cases. He also contended the case was triable by a Magistrate. Respondent's (State of Haryana) Arguments: The State contended that the petitioner was a main promoter and coordinator who actively induced the public, facilitated the collection of deposits totaling approximately Rs. 3000 crores, received substantial amounts in his account, and purchased immovable properties from commissions. They argued that the investigation was still ongoing, and the petitioner's release would hamper it. They also highlighted the pendency of approximately 15 criminal cases against him.