Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 152 (ORI)

Leena Mahesh Motewar v. Republic of India

2019-02-25

S.K.SAHOO

body2019
JUDGMENT : S.K. Sahoo, J. 1. The petitioner Mrs. Leena Mahesh Motewar has filed this application under section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking for bail in connection with S.P.E. Case No. 29 of 2014 pending in the file of learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (C.B.I.) Bhubaneswar corresponding to R.C. No. 34/S/2014-CBI/KOL. dated 05.06.2014 for offences punishable under sections 120-B, 420, 409 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 (hereafter 1978 Act). 2. Sri Basudev Seth, A.S.I. of Police of Bargarh police station lodged the first information report on 12.05.2013 before the Inspector in charge of Bargarh Town police station wherein it is stated that in obedience to the directions of the then I.I.C. Bargarh Town police station, he conducted raid on 11.05.2013 at the Branch Office of Samruddha Jeevan Foods India Ltd. (hereafter ‘the company’) located at Bandutikra Chowk at Bargarh and it came to light during such raid that the Director General, Director and official staff of the said company entered into a criminal conspiracy with each other and in pursuance of such conspiracy, they were collecting huge deposits from the poor public of rural area alluring of high returns and also to provide them domestic animals like goat, sheep, pig etc. It is further stated that the company was not registered with RBI or SEBI for conducting such type of business/money transaction and investment of public money in their own business and thereby cheating the poor investors. On the basis of such F.I.R., Bargarh P.S. Case No. 155 of 2013 was registered on 12.05.2013 under sections 420, 406, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and sections 4 and 5 of 1978 Act. During course of investigation, it revealed that the company was registered under Company Registration Act, 1956 with the Registrar of the Companies (ROC), Pune which was incorporated on 29.04.2002 as Gurukrupa Diary Pvt. Ltd. and the name of the company changed to Samruddha Jeevan Foods India Ltd. w.e.f. 17.09.2003. During course of investigation, it revealed that the company was registered under Company Registration Act, 1956 with the Registrar of the Companies (ROC), Pune which was incorporated on 29.04.2002 as Gurukrupa Diary Pvt. Ltd. and the name of the company changed to Samruddha Jeevan Foods India Ltd. w.e.f. 17.09.2003. The status of the company was converted to Public Ltd. Company on 13.04.2006 and the name of the company changed to Samruddha Jeevan Foods India Ltd. As per the Memorandum of Association, the main objectives of the company was to carry on business i.e. to produce, breed, manufacture, purchase, sell, transfer, lease, develop, care, import, export, hire, licence, use, dispose off for commercial use of all types of animals and live stock such as goat, sheep etc. and also to manufacture all types of food products, agricultural products, fertilizers, animal foods, farming and plantation and to deal with all types of animals and their products. The Authorised share capital of the company in the year 2002 in Gurukrupa Diary Pvt. Ltd. was Rs. 1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh only) divided into 10,000 (ten thousand) equity share of Rs. 10/- each. The petitioner was one of the founder directors of the company and her husband was the Managing Director. There were other directors of the company. As per resolution passed by the Board of Directors in the year 2013, the authorised share capital of the company increased from rupees twenty crores to rupees twenty five crores. The investigation further revealed that the company collected and mobilized deposits from the public through different plans in the guise of sale/purchase of goats/cattle/buffalo's. The company managed to carry out the running of illegal financial business by accepting deposits in fraudulent manner. The husband of the petitioner applied for registration of Samruddha Jeevan Multi State Multi Purpose Cooperative Societies in the office of Central Registrar for Cooperative Societies and continued to accept deposits illegally from the depositors by deceiving them through various schemes in the guise of live stock business with an oblique motive to cheat the depositors. As per the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 09.05.2014 in the writ petitions filed by Sri Subrat Chattoraj and Sri Alok Jena, F.I.R. in Bargarh P.S. Case No. 155 of 2013 was treated as the original F.I.R. by the C.B.I. SPE, SCB, Kolkata and the aforesaid RC case was registered. As per the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 09.05.2014 in the writ petitions filed by Sri Subrat Chattoraj and Sri Alok Jena, F.I.R. in Bargarh P.S. Case No. 155 of 2013 was treated as the original F.I.R. by the C.B.I. SPE, SCB, Kolkata and the aforesaid RC case was registered. The investigation further revealed that the company had its sister concerns which had set up more than three hundred branches all over India including State of Odisha. The husband of the petitioner was holding major shares in many of the companies. Meetings/seminars were conducted at Bhubaneswar and other places all over India to allure the depositors/agents for higher returns on the investment in the company. The money deposited by the investors were not returned to them as assured and they were cheated and the money was misappropriated even though sale registration letters/ certificates were issued to the investors/depositors in token of investment by the depositors in the company. The company without any certificate of registration from SEBI launched Collective Investment Scheme (CIS) which was in contravention of section 12(1B) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (hereafter ‘SEBI Act’) and regulation 3 of Securities and Exchange Board of India (Collective Investment Schemes) Regulations, 1999 (hereafter ‘CIS Regulations’). During 2008 to 2014, the company mobilized deposits to the quantum of Rs. 1116.12 crores approximately from 47.76 lakhs depositors. The company diverted substantial part of funds mobilized from the public under the guise of sale and purchase of livestock for other purposes. The fund mobilizing activity i.e. promising an estimated returns/profit, was camouflaged by the company by way of ordinary sale and purchase of livestock only to mislead and attract investment from general public. The company initially carried on the business of purchase, sale, dealing, trading, breeding and rearing in livestock, including selling the by-products of the livestock like milk, dung, etc. The company invested a substantial amount of money collected from purchases and from investors in assets like land and other infrastructures and also spent substantial amount on advertisements and business promotion and for other purposes. During the course of investigation by CBI, it revealed that the company was collecting investment from customers with a promise of high returns in the guise of operating schemes dealing with goats and buffaloes. During the course of investigation by CBI, it revealed that the company was collecting investment from customers with a promise of high returns in the guise of operating schemes dealing with goats and buffaloes. The investors did not have any control over the management and operation of the schemes or arrangements. More than six hundred bank accounts were traced which were opened/maintained in the name of the company at different banks like Axis Bank, State Bank of India, ING Vysya Bank/Kotak Mahindra Bank, ICICI Bank etc. Out of the above accounts, in majority of accounts, the husband of the petitioner was one of the authorised signatory along with others. The statement of accounts and scrutiny of the bank accounts revealed that there are several high value transactions/transfers of amounts i.e. debits/credits from the accounts of the company to its sister concern and vice versa as well as to the bank accounts of the husband of the petitioner. The company was not having sufficient credit balance in the bank accounts to repay the dues to the large numbers of depositors spreading across all over India in several States. The deposits were initially collected from public by the company with malafide intention and therefore, the company was criminally liable for offence of cheating and misappropriation. It was prima facie found that the husband of the petitioner entered into criminal conspiracy with the company and in pursuance thereof, he collected money from public unauthorizedly with dishonest and fraudulent intention alluring them of higher returns and thereafter he cheated the public. The first charge sheet was placed before the Court on 23.08.2016 against Shri Mahesh Kisan Motewar, Chairman-cum-Managing Director of Samruddha Jeevan Foods India Ltd. and against M/s. Samruddha Jeevan Foods India Ltd. represented through its Director Shri Mahesh Kisan Motewar i.e. accused no. 1 under sections 120-B, 420, 409 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 4, 5 and 6 of the 1978 Act keeping the investigation of the case open in terms under section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. 1973 During course of further investigation, it revealed that the petitioner was the Promoter Director of the Company since 29.04.2002 and continued till 15.12.2003. She was again appointed as Director of the company on 24.10.2013. She resigned from the Directorship of the company since 25.10.2013, however, she continued to be a major stake holder of the company. She was again appointed as Director of the company on 24.10.2013. She resigned from the Directorship of the company since 25.10.2013, however, she continued to be a major stake holder of the company. Substantial amounts, which were illegally collected by the company from the gullible investors in the guise of sale/purchase and rearing of livestock's, were unauthorizedly diverted from the bank account of the company to the various bank accounts of the petitioner through online transfer as well as through cheque payments. An amount of Rs. 13,40,87,178/- has been diverted from various bank accounts of the company to the bank account No. 37010100673648, maintained with Axis Bank Ltd., Pune Mina Branch of the petitioner. Further an amount of Rs. 2,74,80,786/- has been diverted from various bank accounts of the company to the bank account No. 003901561673, maintained with ICICI Bank Ltd. Shivaji Nagar Branch, Pune of the petitioner. Apart from that, an amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- has been diverted from various bank accounts of the company to the bank account No. 4362, maintained with Puna Merchant Coop. Bank Ltd., Padmavati, Pune of the petitioner. Hence, a total sum of Rs. 16,35,67,964/- was found to have been diverted to the bank account of the petitioner from the bank accounts of the company. Hence, the petitioner being a promoter Director of the company and a stake holder of the company misappropriated a sum of Rs. 16,35,67,964/- as the investors were not paid back their deposits as assured on maturity. It revealed during further investigation of the case that the petitioner and Mr. Rajendra Pandurang Bhandare, Directors of the company entered into criminal conspiracy with other co-accused already charge sheeted as well as the company and in pursuance thereof, they cheated the public and subsequently misappropriated the public money collected illegally from the gullible investors in the guise of sale/purchase of livestock which constitute offences punishable under sections 120-B, 420, 409 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 4, 5 and 6 of the 1978 Act. The investigation was kept open under section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. 1973 as several aspects like large criminal conspiracy, money trail, role of regulatory agencies like ROC, SEBI and RBI etc. as mentioned in the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as well as the role of other Directors/Agents of the company were to be fully investigated into. The investigation was kept open under section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. 1973 as several aspects like large criminal conspiracy, money trail, role of regulatory agencies like ROC, SEBI and RBI etc. as mentioned in the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as well as the role of other Directors/Agents of the company were to be fully investigated into. On 12.09.2018 the second charge sheet was placed against the petitioner and Mr. Rajendra Pandurang Bhandare, Directors of the company under sections 120-B, 420, 409 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 4, 5 and 6 of the 1978 Act to face trial in the competent Court, by keeping the investigation of the case open under section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. 1973. On receipt such charge sheet, cognizance of the offences under sections 120-B, 420, 409 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 4, 5 and 6 of the 1978 Act was taken and process was issued against the petitioner and Mr. Rajendra Pandurang Bhandare, Directors of the company. 3. The bail application of the petitioner was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar in Bail Application No. 876 of 2018 vide order dated 17.07.2018 on the ground that the petitioner was one of the Directors of the company and she was involved in generating the public money and misappropriating the same in connivance with the other co-accused persons and that the further investigation was underway and that the petitioner might influence the material witnesses and even abscond and that it is an economic offence which has affected the society at large. 4. Mr. Suresh Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the co-accused Mahesh Kisan Motewar, who was the Managing Director of the company and the husband of the petitioner has been released on bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 7563 of 2018 vide order dated 26.10.2018 only on the ground that he was arrested on 16.12.2015 and charge sheet was filed on 23.08.2016 and charges have not been framed. It is submitted that the petitioner, who is in judicial custody since 10.08.2016, stands on the similar footing and therefore, on the ground of parity and equity, she should be released on bail keeping in view the proviso to section 437(1) of Cr.P.C. 1973 It is further contended that there is nothing in the charge sheet to show that the petitioner was responsible for handling the bank transaction or she was actively associated with the company as Director. The money which was transferred to the accounts of the petitioner was her salary and other remunerations and the Investigating Officer has given it a name of misappropriation just to harass the petitioner. It is further submitted that since the charge sheet contains thousands of pages and there are more than hundred of witnesses and since charges have not yet been framed, the trial would take years for its completion and since there is no chance of absconding or tampering with the evidence, therefore, the bail application may be sympathetically considered. 5. Mr. Anup Kumar Bose, learned Asst. Solicitor General appearing for the Republic of India, on the other hand, submitted that so far as this case is concerned, the petitioner was taken on remand on 17.05.2018, which is also reflected in the second charge sheet, which was filed on 12.09.2018. Co-accused Mahesh Kisan Motewar, on the other hand, was taken on remand in the case on 27.04.2016 though he was arrested in connection with other cases on 16.12.2015. Therefore, the period of detention of the petitioner is much lesser than that of the co-accused Mahesh Kisan Motewar. It is submitted that the petitioner and one Santosh Kaluram Paigude were the founder Directors of the company, which was in the name of M/s. Gurukrupa Diary Pvt. Ltd. since 29.04.2002 and she was a major stake holder of the company. Number of shares allotted to the petitioner was 855265 and the value of the shares allotted was Rs. 85,52,650/- (rupees eighty five lakhs fifty two thousand six hundred fifty only). The petitioner with her Director Identification no. 03611758 was registered with the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) and she was also the director of various other sister concerns of the company. 85,52,650/- (rupees eighty five lakhs fifty two thousand six hundred fifty only). The petitioner with her Director Identification no. 03611758 was registered with the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) and she was also the director of various other sister concerns of the company. Learned counsel submitted that substantial amount of deposits were illegally collected by the company from the gullible investors in the guise of sale/purchase and rearing of live stocks and money was un-authorizedly diverted from the bank account of the company to various bank accounts of the petitioner through online transfer as well as cheque payments. Total amount of Rs. 16,35,67,964/- (rupees sixteen crores thirty five lakhs sixty seven thousands nine hundred sixty four only) was found to have been diverted from the bank account of the company to various bank accounts of the petitioner, which she has misappropriated and the investors were not paid back with their deposits with assured amount on maturity. It is submitted that the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) passed an ex-parte order on 31.10.2013 observing that the company was engaged in fund mobilising activities from the public by floating or sponsoring or launching Collective Investment Scheme (CIS) in terms of section 11AA of SEBI Act without obtaining a Certificate of Registration from SEBI as required under section 12(1B) of the SEBI Act and regulation 3 of the CIS Regulations. By virtue of interim order, the company and its Directors were restrained collecting any more money from the investors including under the existence schemes, launching new schemes, disposing of any of the properties or alienate any of the assets of the schemes and also diverting any fund raised from public at large, which were kept in the bank accounts or in the custody of the company. It is further argued that the company had no statutory authority to run Collective Investment Schemes by making false promises to the investors of higher return on their investment. In the guise of rearing contracts of goat, buffalo's etc. the company collected huge amount from the depositors. It is submitted that further investigation of the case is under progress. The role of other Directors are yet to be found out so also the money trailing, larger conspiracy and role of regulatory authorities like ROC, SEBI and RBI. In the guise of rearing contracts of goat, buffalo's etc. the company collected huge amount from the depositors. It is submitted that further investigation of the case is under progress. The role of other Directors are yet to be found out so also the money trailing, larger conspiracy and role of regulatory authorities like ROC, SEBI and RBI. It is submitted that the gravity of the accusation is severe, period of detention for a substantial period cannot be a ground to grant bail. It is submitted that the petitioner was inducted as Director of the company on 29.04.2002 and she continued as such till 15.12.2003 at the first instance and on the second instance, she joined as a Director on 24.10.2013 but she resigned from the Directorship of the company on 25.10.2013. It is argued that the submission of the petitioner's counsel that the money which was transferred to the accounts of the petitioner was her salary and other remuneration is not correct. The petitioner was a major stake holder of the company and she misappropriated huge amount. It is further submitted that the complicity of the petitioner prima facie revealed during investigation and there is chance of her absconding as well as tampering with the evidence. It is argued that the offence committed was having grave social ramifications and the investigation is still open and therefore, the petitioner should not be released on bail. 6. Adverting to the contentions raised by the learned counsels for the respective parties, I find that there is no dispute that the petitioner was the Promoter Director of the company since 29.04.2002 and she continued till 15.12.2003. She was again appointed as Director of the company on 24.10.2013 but she resigned from the Directorship on the next day i.e. on 25.10.2013. The company offered various schemes for sale, purchase, rearing and breeding of live stocks i.e. goats and buffaloes and collected huge amount from the public. It appears that the total deposits received from 47.76 lakhs depositors during the financial years from 2008-09 to 2013-14 was to the tune of Rs. 1116.12 crores approximately. In spite of the ex-parte interim order of SEBI not to collect money from the investors or launch or carry out any collective investment schemes, the company flouted the order and accepted money from the depositors and also indulged in diversion of funds. 1116.12 crores approximately. In spite of the ex-parte interim order of SEBI not to collect money from the investors or launch or carry out any collective investment schemes, the company flouted the order and accepted money from the depositors and also indulged in diversion of funds. It further appears that the petitioner continued to be a major stake holder of the company and a total sum of Rs. 16,35,67,974/- (rupees sixteen crores thirty five lakhs sixty seven thousands nine hundred seventy four only) was found to have been diverted to different accounts of the petitioner from the company. The assurance which was given to the depositors by way of different schemes at the time of collection of money was not carried out and huge amount of public money collected illegally was misappropriated. Section 12(1B) of the SEBI Act states that no person shall sponsor or cause to be sponsored or carry on or cause to be carried on any venture capital funds or collective investment scheme including mutual funds, unless he obtains a certificate of registration from the Board in accordance with the regulations. Regulation 3 of CIS regulations states that no person other than a Collective Investment Management Company which has obtained a certificate under these regulations shall carry on or sponsor or launch a collective investment scheme. Admittedly, no such certificates as provided either in the SEBI Act or CIS regulations were obtained by the company from the competent authority. 7. Law is well settled that detailed examination of evidence and elaborate discussion on merits of the case need not be undertaken for grant of bail. The Court has to indicate in the bail order, reasons for prima facie conclusion why bail was being granted, particularly, when the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. In the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav, 2004 SCC (Criminal) 1977, it is held as follows: "11....The Court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail, a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Though at the stage of granting bail, a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind. It is also necessary for the Court to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail: (a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence. (b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant. (c) Prima-facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge." In the case of Ram Govind Upadhyay vs. Sudarshan Singh, 2002 SCC (Criminal) 688, it is held as follows:- "3. Grant of bail though being a discretionary order but, however, calls for exercise of such discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Order of bail bereft of any cogent reason cannot be sustained. Needless to record, however, that the grant of bail is depended upon the contextual facts of the matter being dealt with by the court and facts, however, do always vary from case to case. While placement of the accused in the society, though may be considered but that by itself cannot be a guiding factor in the matter of grant of bail and the same should and ought always to be coupled with other circumstances warranting the grant of bail. The nature of the offence is one of the basic considerations for the grant of bail. The nature of the offence is one of the basic considerations for the grant of bail. More heinous is the crime, the greater is the chance of rejection of the bail, though, however, depended on the factual matrix of the matter." In the case of Prahalad Singh Bhati vs. NCT of Delhi, 2001 SCC (Criminal) 674, it is held as follows:- "8.....While granting the bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character, behaviour, means and standing of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public or state and similar other considerations." In the case of Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI, AIR 2012 SC 830 , it is held as follows:- "25.........It is, no doubt, true that the nature of the charge may be relevant, but at the same time, the punishment to which the party may be liable, if convicted, also bears upon the issue. Therefore, in determining whether to grant bail, both the seriousness of the charge and the severity of the punishment should be taken into consideration. The grant or refusal to grant bail lies within the discretion of the Court. The grant or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. But at the same time, right to bail is not to be denied merely because of the sentiments of the community against the accused. The grant or refusal to grant bail lies within the discretion of the Court. The grant or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. But at the same time, right to bail is not to be denied merely because of the sentiments of the community against the accused. The primary purposes of bail in a criminal case are to relieve the accused of imprisonment, to relieve the State of the burden of keeping him, pending the trial, and at the same time, to keep the accused constructively in the custody of the Court, whether before or after conviction, to assure that he will submit to the jurisdiction of the Court and be in attendance thereon whenever his presence is required." The law relating to bail in a case of economic offences in is more or less settled in view of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Y.S. Jagarmohon Reddy vs. CBI, (2013) 55 Orissa Criminal Reports (SC) 825, State of Gujarat vs. Mohan Lal Jitamalji Porwal, AIR 1987 SC 1321 and Nimmagadda Prasad vs. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 466 . In the case of Y.S. Jagan Mohan (supra), it is held as follows:- "15. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The 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 as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country. 16. While granting bail, the Court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of public/State and other similar considerations." In case of Mohan Lal Jitamalji Porwal (supra), it is held as follows:- "5. xxx xxx xxx The entire community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to book. A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. xxx xxx xxx The entire community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to book. A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the Community. A disregard for the interest of the community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the Community in the system to administer justice in an even handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white colour crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the National Economy and National Interest." In case of Nimmagadda Prasad (supra), it is held as follows:- "25. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offence have been deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds needs to be viewed seriously and considered as a grave offence affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country." Therefore, economic offences are considered grave offences as it affects the economy of the country as a whole and such offences having deep rooted conspiracy and involving huge loss of public fund are to be viewed seriously. Economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design solely with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the community. In such type of offences, while granting bail, the Court has to keep in mind, inter-alia, the larger interest of public and State. The nature and seriousness of an economic offence and its impact on the society are always important considerations in such a case and those aspects must squarely be dealt with by the Court while passing an order on bail applications. No doubt at the stage of granting bail, detailed examination of evidence and elaborate discussions on merits of the case need not be taken but the order must reflect the reasons for arriving at a prima facie conclusion as to why bail was being granted particularly when the accused-petitioner is charged with economic offences. No doubt at the stage of granting bail, detailed examination of evidence and elaborate discussions on merits of the case need not be taken but the order must reflect the reasons for arriving at a prima facie conclusion as to why bail was being granted particularly when the accused-petitioner is charged with economic offences. Discretion should be used in a proper and judicious manner and the Court must take note of the nature of accusation, the nature of supporting evidence, the severity of punishment in case of conviction, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the evidence, criminal antecedents etc. Bail should not be denied merely because the sentiments of the community are against the accused. 8. Coming to the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner relating to release of the petitioner on bail on the ground of parity, it is the settled law that parity cannot be the sole ground for grant of bail. It is one of the grounds for consideration of the question of bail. Bail is granted on the totality of facts and circumstances of a case. The principle of grant of bail on parity cannot be allowed to be carried to an absurd or illogical conclusion so as to put a Judge in tight and strait jacket to grant bail automatically. There is no absolute hidebound rule that bail must necessarily be granted to the co-accused, where another co-accused has been granted bail. Even at the stage of subsequent bail application when the bail application of the co-accused whose bail had been earlier rejected is allowed and co-accused is released on bail, even then also the Court has to satisfy itself that, on consideration of more materials placed, further developments in the investigations or otherwise and other different considerations, there are sufficient grounds for releasing the applicant on bail. If on careful scrutiny in a given case, it transpires that the case of the applicant before the Court is identically similar to the accused on facts and circumstances who has been bailed out, then the desirability of consistency will require that such an accused should also be released on bail. The grant of bail is not a mechanical act. Merely because some of the co-accused, whom similar role has been ascribed, has been released on bail earlier, the power of the Court cannot be fettered to act against conscience. The grant of bail is not a mechanical act. Merely because some of the co-accused, whom similar role has been ascribed, has been released on bail earlier, the power of the Court cannot be fettered to act against conscience. The Hon'ble Supreme Court granted bail to the co-accused Mahesh Kisan Motewar on 26.10.2018 on the ground that he was arrested on 16.12.2015 and charge sheet was submitted since 23.08.2016 but charges have not been framed. The first charge sheet was submitted on 23.08.2016 against the said accused and the company, wherein, it was indicated that the said accused was taken on remand in the case on 27.04.2016 on the basis of production warrant. The second charge sheet was submitted on 12.09.2018 against the petitioner and another and it is reflected therein that the petitioner was taken on remand in the case on the strength of production warrant on 17.05.2018. Therefore, the period of detention of the petitioner in judicial custody in connection with this case varies from the co-accused, who has been enlarged on bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in other words, the petitioner has remained in custody for a much lesser period than the co-accused. 9. Let me now consider the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding favourable consideration of bail of the petitioner being a woman in view of the proviso to section 437(1) of Cr.P.C. 1973 Under section 437 (1) of the Code, when a person accused of, or suspected of, the commission of any non-bailable offence is arrested or detained without warrant by an officer in charge of a police station or appears or is brought before a Court other than the High Court and Court of Session, he may be released on bail by the Court subject to the conditions that he does not reasonably appear to have been guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The conditions of not releasing the person on bail charged with an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life shall not be applicable if such person is under the age of sixteen years or is a woman or is sick or infirm, subject to such conditions as may be imposed. It does not, however, mean that persons specified in the first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 437 of Cr.P.C. 1973 should necessarily be released on bail. It does not, however, mean that persons specified in the first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 437 of Cr.P.C. 1973 should necessarily be released on bail. The proviso is an enabling provision which confers jurisdiction upon a Court, other than the High Court or Court of Session, to release a person on bail who has appeared or brought before the Court despite the fact that there appears reasonable ground for believing that such person has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. There is no gainsaying that the discretion conferred by the Code has to be exercised judicially. The overriding considerations in granting bail which are common both in sections 437(1) and 439(1) of the Code are the nature and gravity of the offence, position and status of the accused with reference to the victim and the witnesses and likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and tampering with witnesses etc. Bail is a matter of procedural privilege and not an accrued right until it is granted. The law is the sentinel of rights of the society and of the individual. The cause of public justice and interest of society have to be zealously guarded compared to the rights of an applicant. If the offence is of such a nature which affects the vital interest of the society and has adverse effect on the social and family life, in such matters the issue is to be considered with reference to them and one of the consideration which has to be weighed for granting or refusing bail is the nature of the offence and its heinousness. Though the beneficial provision relating to release of an accused under the age of sixteen years or on the ground of being a woman or sick or infirm has to be kept in mind while considering his/her bail in spite of his/her involvement in an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life but at the same time the Court should also give due weight to the other aspects like nature and gravity of the offence etc. and also the adverse impact of the offence committed on the society. 10. and also the adverse impact of the offence committed on the society. 10. Without detailed examination of evidence and elaborate discussions on the merits of the case but taking into account the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record against the petitioner relating to the commission of the offences under which charge sheet has been submitted, the nature and gravity of the accusation, the nature of supporting evidence, the severity of punishment in case of conviction, the manner in which huge amount of money was collected in contravention of the provisions of SEBI Act and CIS Regulations and the innocent poor persons were cheated of their hard earned money on the basis of the false assurance given by the company in the name of sale/purchase/rearing/ breeding of live stocks like goats and buffaloes, availability of documentary evidence relating to money trailing from the company's accounts to the accounts of the petitioner, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the evidence, availability of prima facie materials against the petitioner regarding her involvement in the commission of offences and particularly taking into account the fact that further investigation on some important aspects is under progress and when the offence involved misappropriation of huge amount of public money, in the larger interest of public and State, I am of the humble view that even if the co-accused has been released on bail, it would not be proper to release the petitioner on bail. 11. Accordingly, the bail application sans merit and hence stands rejected.