“Economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country.”
Court’s Decision
The Tripura High Court dismissed the bail application filed on behalf of the accused under Section 483 BNSS, 2023, rejecting the plea for release in connection with an economic offence involving embezzlement and forgery in HDFC Bank’s Udaipur and Khowai branches. The Court held that:
- Economic offences require a different approach in bail matters due to their grave impact on society.
- Prima facie materials exist against the accused, justifying continued detention.
- The stage of trial and the seriousness of the allegations do not permit bail at this stage.
The Court directed the trial court to expedite the trial considering the prolonged custody of the accused.
Facts
The case originated from a complaint by a retired teacher who alleged that Rs. 18 lakhs deposited in her fixed deposits at HDFC Bank’s Udaipur branch were misappropriated using a fake account opened in her name, with forged signatures on cheques leading to unauthorised withdrawals. Investigation revealed:
- The accused was the PB Authoriser during the fake account’s opening.
- He admitted authorising the form without the customer’s presence.
- Transactions included misappropriated amounts in favour of other accused, with Rs. 20,000 credited to the present accused’s Axis Bank account.
- Allegations extended to the accused’s tenure as branch manager at HDFC Khowai branch where forged cheques were encashed.
The total embezzlement during the relevant period was approximately Rs. 88 lakhs, and the accused had been in custody since 27 March 2025.
Issues
- Whether the accused is entitled to bail considering the gravity of the alleged economic offences.
- Whether the advanced stage of the trial and duration of custody justify bail.
- Whether economic offences require a different judicial approach to bail despite Article 21 considerations.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued:
- The investigation is complete, and the charge-sheet has been filed.
- The accused has been in custody since March 2025, and prolonged detention violates Article 21.
- Cited Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, and Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh to assert that:
- Bail is the rule, jail is the exception.
- Delay in trial is a valid ground for bail.
- Even in economic offences, bail can be granted considering case-specific facts.
The petitioner also offered to deposit a portion of the alleged misappropriated amount as a condition for bail.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State opposed bail, arguing:
- Economic offences involving deep-rooted conspiracies and large public fund misappropriation are serious and affect public trust.
- Cited Ashwini Kumar Patra v. Republic of India, Nimmagadda Prasad v. CBI, State of Bihar v. Amit Kumar alias Bachcha Rai, and Tarun Kumar v. Directorate of Enforcement to highlight:
- Courts must consider the seriousness of the offence and the societal impact.
- Bail in economic offences should be approached cautiously.
- The accused, while under suspension, could tamper with evidence and influence the trial if released.
- Supplementary charge-sheets may be filed, and the case involves forged documents, which could be manipulated.
Analysis of the Law
- Economic offences are treated as a separate class requiring heightened judicial scrutiny in bail matters (Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI, State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal).
- Courts must balance Article 21 rights with the societal impact of economic offences (Sanjay Chandra, P. Chidambaram).
- The grant of bail in economic offences depends on factors like:
- Gravity of the offence.
- Potential sentence if convicted.
- Likelihood of tampering with evidence.
- Delay in trial proceedings.
The legal principle remains that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, but economic offences can warrant deviation when public trust and financial integrity are threatened.
Precedent Analysis
- Sanjay Chandra v. CBI: Bail should not be denied merely due to the nature of the allegations if the investigation is complete and the accused is unlikely to tamper with evidence.
- P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement: Even in economic offences, bail is not barred; decisions should be made on a case-to-case basis.
- Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI: Reaffirmed bail jurisprudence while noting economic offences require consideration of gravity.
- Ashwini Kumar Patra v. Republic of India, Nimmagadda Prasad v. CBI, and Tarun Kumar v. Directorate of Enforcement: Emphasised that economic offences involving large public fund losses and conspiracies require serious consideration before granting bail.
The Court applied these precedents but leaned towards denying bail due to the seriousness of the allegations and societal impact.
Court’s Reasoning
- The case involves serious allegations of misappropriation and forgery, implicating the accused during his tenure at HDFC Udaipur and Khowai branches.
- Economic offences are on the rise and affect the financial system and public trust.
- Prima facie material against the accused exists, and determining innocence is not possible at the bail stage.
- While Article 21 considerations and delay in trial are important, the gravity of the allegations outweighs these factors at this stage.
Conclusion
The Tripura High Court dismissed the bail application, holding:
- Bail is not justified at this stage due to the seriousness of the allegations.
- The trial court should expedite the trial considering the accused’s prolonged custody.
- Supplementary charge-sheets may be filed, and the case requires detailed examination during trial.
The record was directed to be sent back to the trial court to proceed with the case at the earliest.
Implications
- Reinforces that economic offences require a different, cautious approach in bail matters.
- Highlights that Article 21 considerations cannot override the gravity of financial crimes.
- Stresses expedited trial in cases where the accused remain in custody to balance liberty with societal interests.
Brief Note on Cases Referred
- Sanjay Chandra v. CBI: Liberty should not be curtailed merely due to the allegations if the investigation is complete.
- P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement: Bail in economic offences is not barred, but gravity is relevant.
- Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI: Reinforces bail principles, noting economic offences require cautious application.
- Ashwini Kumar Patra v. Republic of India, Nimmagadda Prasad v. CBI, State of Bihar v. Amit Kumar alias Bachcha Rai, Tarun Kumar v. Directorate of Enforcement: Emphasise caution in granting bail for economic offences, considering their societal impact.
These cases guided the court in balancing liberty against the seriousness of the economic offences.
FAQs
1. Can bail be granted in economic offences despite the seriousness of the allegations?
Bail can be granted but requires a cautious approach, balancing Article 21 with societal interests and the offence’s gravity.
2. Does prolonged custody guarantee bail in financial crime cases?
No, prolonged custody is a factor but does not automatically entitle an accused to bail in serious economic offences.
3. Can courts direct expedited trial while denying bail in economic offences?
Yes, courts can ensure a speedy trial to balance the rights of the accused with the seriousness of allegations.