S.437 CrPC Does Not Give Absolute Right To Bail To A Lady Accused In Multiple FIRs For Duping ₹167 Crores: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Punjab and Haryana High Court while dealing with a case where the petitioners conspired and duped several victims of an amount of Rs. 167 crores by alluring innocent persons on the pretext of providing them tenders with National Security Guards (NSG), Manesar, held that there are serious allegations of fraud and cheating against the petitioners, and no ground is made out to grant them the concession of regular bail. The bench comprising Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan further noted that the petitioners are not entitled to get bail under provisions of Section 437(6) Cr. P.C because they, apart from the present FIR, are involved in four more FIRs of similar nature. The arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are entitled to get bail in view of the provisions of Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. cannot be accepted for the reasons that both the petitioners, apart from the present FIR, are involved in four more FIRs of similar nature, where other victims have also been cheated by all the accused persons in conspiracy with each other and a total fraud of around Rs. 167 crores has been committed. Therefore, this Court finds that it is not a special case. While stating that no ground for grant of bail under Section 437 Cr.P.C. is made out in the instant case, the court further noted that even otherwise, Section 437 Cr.P.C. does not give any absolute right to bail to a lady, who is an accused in other FIRs for duping people for a hundred crores of rupees. Even otherwise, Section 437 Cr.P.C. does not give any absolute right to bail to a lady, who is allegedly an accused in a number of other FIRs for duping people from general public worth hundred crores of rupees. The court also rejected bail on the ground that the petitioners are having children with them and stated that the jail authorities are bound to provide all the medical assistance to petitioners as well as their children if so required. The argument that the petitioners are having children with them is also no ground for granting them bail at this stage in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as the jail authorities are bound to provide all the medical assistance to petitioners and their children, if so required. This is also recorded by learned Illaqua Magistrate and Additional Sessions Judge in their respective orders. Therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances and considering the serious allegations of fraud and cheating against the petitioners, the court concluded that no ground is made out to grant them the concession of regular bail. Case Title: Mamta Versus State of Haryana, and connected matterCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 105Click Here To Read/Download Order

S.437 CrPC Does Not Give Absolute Right To Bail To A Lady Accused In Multiple FIRs For Duping ₹167 Crores: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Drishti Yadav

Tags