Absence of Parity and Gravity of Section 409 IPC Charges Warrant Denial of Bail in Multi-Victim Fraud Case.

The applicant sought regular bail in FIR No. 273/2019 (PS EOW) involving offences under Sections 406/409/420/120B of the IPC.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant, as a Director and 50% shareholder of Star Global Star Limited, induced 156 investors to invest approximately ₹13.4 Crores under false promises of high returns in fisheries and floriculture, subsequently siphoning the funds.

The applicant has been in custody for four and a half years.

He argued for parity with co-accused Rajesh Kumar Laura, who was granted bail on November 7, 2024, and claimed he was a "petty fruit vendor" unaware of his directorship.

The State opposed bail citing the severity of Section 409 IPC, five other pending criminal cases against the applicant, and the fact that another Director remains absconding.

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail on the principle of parity with co-accused Rajesh Kumar Laura.

Whether the applicant's claim of being a "benami" director and the duration of his incarceration (four and a half years) outweigh the gravity of the offence and his criminal antecedents.

The court primarily applied Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) regarding criminal breach of trust by a public servant, banker, merchant, or agent, which carries a potential sentence of life imprisonment.

It also considered Section 420 (cheating) and the principle of parity in bail jurisprudence, which requires that the role and nature of charges against the applicant must be identical or substantially similar to those of the co-accused who was granted bail.

The Court rejected the plea of parity, noting that while the co-accused Rajesh Kumar Laura was charged under Section 420 IPC, the applicant faces the more severe charge under Section 409 IPC due to his status as a Director and authorized signatory.

The Court found the applicant's defense—that he was a fruit vendor unaware of his directorship—prima facie unbelievable, given he held 50% of the company's shares.

Regarding the delay in trial, the Court accepted the State's explanation that proceedings were hindered by a revision petition filed by a co-accused and the filing of supplementary chargesheets against absconding persons.

Finally, the Court emphasized the gravity of the "socio-economic offence" involving 156 victims and the applicant's involvement in five other similar cases across the country.

It held that no parity exists where the nature of the charges (Section 409 vs. Section 420 IPC) differs significantly.

Given the seriousness of siphoning ₹13.4 Crores, the applicant’s criminal antecedents, and the ongoing nature of the trial, the Court found no merit in the application.

The bail application was dismissed.