High Court refused to cancel the Bail Granted to a CA Couple Accused of Income Tax Fraud

High Court refused to cancel the Bail Granted to a CA Couple Accused of Income Tax Fraud The Delhi High Court refused to cancel the Bail Granted to a CA Couple Accused of Income Tax Fraud in the matter of Rita Bhutani Vs. State of NCT of Delhi. The Petitioner is a senior citizen on whose name property bearing No.S-61, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi-110017 had devolved after the death of her husband was cheated by two CA's couples in a case of misappropriation of property. It is stated that the loan amount of Rs.2,50,00,000/- was misappropriated by the accused and the accused had also fraudulently opened many bank accounts in the Petitioner's name. Further, when the Petitioner enquired about the details of the bank statements, she found that no payments had been made to the Income Tax Department. She further found that some payments had been made to a company namely, Shivalik Holidays Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Yans Swastik Pvt. Ltd. The Coram Found out that, " In the month of December 2010, the Petitioner met one Manoj Sachdeva (Respondent No.2 herein) and his wife. The Petitioner was informed that Respondent No.2 herein was a Chartered Accountant and his wife was his associate." Mr. Gaggar (Petitioner Advocate) submits that the instant matter is predominantly forgery and cheating, and the instant application seeking cancellation of bail has been filed as certain circumstances have arisen that indicate that Respondent No.2 is resorting to illegal methods to shield himself. He submits that Respondent No.2, from the inception of investigation, had been contending that the alleged loan transactions had been conducted by one Anil Alexender Biswas, who is the Director of the company M/s Shivalik Holidays. He states that recently Mr. Biswas passed away under mysterious circumstances and this gives impetus to the suspicion that it is no longer conducive for Respondent No.2 to be out on bail. He further submits that Respondent No.2 is a habitual offender and he has allegedly deprived not only the Petitioner herein of monies, but other people as well. The High Court rule out that, " In view of the above, this Court does not deem it fit to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to set aside impugned Orders dated 11.03.2019 and 06.01.2021. However, this Court is cognizant of the fact that the Petitioner is a female senior citizen who has been embroiled in this matter since 2015, and that charges are yet to be framed despite a lapse of three years. This Court, therefore, directs the learned Trial Court to hear arguments on charge and if charges are framed, expeditiously conduct the trial and conclude the same within a period of 18 months year from the date of this Order. It is well settled that where bail has been granted by lower court, an Appellate Court must be slow to interfere and ought to be guided by the principles set out for the exercise of the power to set aside bail." The petition is dismissed with the above observations. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. To Read Judgment Download PDF Given Below: