Bail – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 480 & 483 – Economic offences – Large-scale financial fraud – Agent of financial establishment – Investigation at crucial stage – Bail refused Paras 6, 7, 8, 9 Where the accused is alleged to have acted as an agent of a financial establishment, collected amounts exceeding ₹3.14 crores, deceived a large number of investors, and the investigation is at a crucial stage, the Court is justified in refusing bail, particularly when the accused is alleged to have played a pivotal and significant role in the commission of the offence.

advocatemmmohan

Bail – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 480 & 483 – Economic offences – Large-scale financial fraud – Agent of financial establishment – Investigation at crucial stage – Bail refused

Paras 6, 7, 8, 9

Where the accused is alleged to have acted as an agent of a financial establishment, collected amounts exceeding ₹3.14 crores, deceived a large number of investors, and the investigation is at a crucial stage, the Court is justified in refusing bail, particularly when the accused is alleged to have played a pivotal and significant role in the commission of the offence.

---

Bail – Serious economic offences – Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishment Act, 1999 – Section 5 – Gravity and societal impact

Paras 6, 7, 8

Economic offences involving public money, large-scale deception of gullible investors, and offences under the AP Protection of Depositors Act stand on a distinct footing, warranting a strict approach while considering bail.

---

Bail – Investigation pending – Likelihood of hampering investigation – Witness intimidation

Paras 5, 6, 7

When the investigation is still underway, numerous witnesses are yet to be examined, and there is a reasonable apprehension that the accused may influence or intimidate witnesses, grant of bail is not warranted.

---

Bail – Parity – Accused in custody – Distinct role of petitioner

Paras 6, 7

Merely because some accused are agents, parity cannot be claimed when the petitioner’s role is alleged to be more serious and central compared to other accused.

---

Custodial interrogation – Dismissal of police petition – Not a ground for bail

Para 6

Dismissal of a petition for custodial interrogation by itself does not entitle the accused to bail when the investigation is still at a crucial stage and allegations disclose a grave economic offence.

---

ANALYSIS

1. Nature of the Offence

The Court treats the case as a serious economic offence involving:

• Collection of ₹3.14 crores,

• Large number of depositors,

• Alleged role as agent and conspirator,

• Offences under BNS and AP Protection of Depositors Act (Para 6).

Such offences affect public confidence and have a societal impact, justifying a stricter bail standard.

---

2. Stage of Investigation as Decisive Factor

Despite 52 days of custody (Para 6), the Court gives primacy to:

• Investigation being at a crucial stage,

• 1,357 witnesses involved,

• Need to prevent interference with evidence and witnesses.

The pendency and sensitivity of investigation outweighed the liberty claim.

---

3. Role Attribution

The Court distinctly notes:

• Petitioner’s pivotal role in joining investors,

• Greater culpability compared to other agents (Para 7).

This defeats any plea of parity or leniency.

---

4. Custodial Interrogation Rejection Not Conclusive

Even though custodial interrogation was refused by the Magistrate (Para 6), the High Court clarifies that:

• Bail cannot be claimed as a corollary,

• Investigation requirements extend beyond custodial interrogation.

---

5. Balancing Liberty vs. Public Interest

The Court consciously balances:

• Personal liberty of the accused, against

• Public interest, investor protection, and integrity of investigation.

Given the magnitude and nature of the offence, the balance tilts against bail.

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

In cases involving large-scale financial fraud and offences under the Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishment Act, where the accused is alleged to have played a pivotal role and the investigation is at a crucial stage with apprehension of witness influence, bail under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 can be lawfully refused, notwithstanding the period of custody or dismissal of custodial interrogation.