Skip to content
Home » Centrum Financial Services Ltd. v. State of NCT of Delhi

Centrum Financial Services Ltd. v. State of NCT of Delhi

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – S. 439 – Where a Court while considering an application for bail fails to consider the relevant factors, an Appellate Court may justifiably set aside the order granting bail. Appellate Court is thus required to consider whether the order granting bail suffers from a non­-application of mind or a prima facie view from the evidence available on record.

From the aforesaid it emerges that while releasing Respondent no.2 on bail, the High Court has not at all considered the relevant factors including the nature and gravity of accusation; the modus operandi and the manner in which the offences have been committed through shell companies and creating the false/forged documents and/or misusing the PAN Cards, Aadhar Cards and KYCs of the employees and showing them as Directors of the fake and shell companies. As observed hereinabove, the High Court has not at all considered and taken into consideration the status report and the evidence collected during the course of the investigation. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court releasing Respondent No.2 on bail is unsustainable as the High Court while releasing Respondent No.2 on bail has not exercised the jurisdiction judiciously and has not considered the relevant factors which are required to be considered while grant of bail. [Para 13]

Case Law Reference

  1. Prabhakar Tewari v. State of U.P., (2020) 11 SCC 648
  2. Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar @ Polia, (2020) 2 SCC 118
  3. X v. State of Telangana, (2018) 16 SCC 511
  4. Anil Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2018) 12 SCC 129
  5. Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2016) 15 SCC 422
  6. Mitthan Yadav v. State of U.P., 2014 SCC OnLine All 16031
  7. Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508
  8. Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496
  9. Masroor v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2009) 14 SCC 286
  10. State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21
  11. Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan [(2004) 7 SCC 528
  12. Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598
  13. Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT of Delhi, (2001) 4 SCC 280
  14. Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349
  15. Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), (1978) 1 SCC 118

Case Number : Criminal Appeal No. 94 of 2022; January 28, 2022

Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah pronounced the reportable judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjiv Khanna.

For Appellant(s) Mr. Ashutosh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar Choudhary, Adv. Mr. Bhaskar Mishra, Adv. Ms. Namita Choudhary, AOR Ms. Srishti Khurana, Adv. Ms. Nikita Jain, Adv. Ms. Srishti Choudhary, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, AOR Mr. Roshan Santhalia, AOR Mr. Vikas Sethi, Adv. Mr. Puja Jakhar, Adv.

Case Link :

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 1 Average: 5]