BAIL IN RELATION TO

WHITE COLLAR CRIMES

PRESENTATION BY:
AISWARYA SAHU
TARANJEET SINGH
WHAT IS WHITE COLLAR CRIME?

• WHITE-COLLAR CRIME WAS FIRST COINED IN 1949 BY SOCIOLOGIST EDWIN

SUTHERLAND, WHO DEFINED IT AS “CRIME COMMITTED BY A PERSON OF
RESPECTABILITY AND HIGH SOCIAL STATUS IN THE COURSE OF HIS
OCCUPATION.”
• WHITE-COLLAR CRIME IS A NONVIOLENT CRIME COMMITTED FOR
FINANCIAL GAIN. THESE CRIMES ARE CHARACTERIZED BY DECEIT,
CONCEALMENT, OR VIOLATION OF TRUST. THE MOTIVATION FOR THESE
CRIMES IS “TO OBTAIN OR AVOID LOSING MONEY, PROPERTY, OR SERVICES
OR TO SECURE A PERSONAL OR BUSINESS ADVANTAGE.”
TYPES OF WHITE COLLAR CRIMES

1. FRAUD
2. CORPORATE FRAUD
3. MONEY LAUNDERING
4. SECURITIES AND COMMODITIES FRAUD
5. EMBEZZLEMENT
6. INSIDER TRADING
7. COUNTERFEITING
8. CORRUPTION
9. TAX EVASION
WHAT IS BAIL?

• BLACK’S DICTIONARY DEFINES BAIL AS “PROCURING THE RELEASE OF A

PERSON FROM LEGAL CUSTODY, BY UNDERTAKING THAT HE/SHE SHALL APPEAR
AT THE TIME AND PLACE DESIGNATED AND SUBMIT HIM/HERSELF TO THE
JURISDICTION AND JUDGMENT OF THE COURT”. 
• BAIL IS THE CONDITIONAL RELEASE OF A PERSON ACCUSED OF A CRIME, FOR
AN AMOUNT, PLEDGED FOR THE APPEARANCE OF THE ACCUSED WHEN THE
SAME IS DUE IN COURT. THE PERSON PAYING THE MONEY ACTS AS THE
SURETY. GETTING BAIL IS ONE OF THE RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED IN A CIVIL
CASE WHILE IT IS THE DISCRETION OF THE BAIL GRANTING AUTHORITY IN A
CRIMINAL CASE. 
CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH BAIL CAN BE GRANTED IN
INDIA
1. BAILABLE OFFENCE
• GENERAL PRINCIPLE SAYS THAT BAIL IS MATTER OF RIGHT IN BAILABLE
OFFENCES 
2. NON BAILABLE OFFENCES
• ACCORDING TO SECTION 437 OF CRPC, WHEN SOMEONE COMMITS NON
BAILABLE OFFENCE HE MAY BE RELEASED ON BAIL, BUT
(I) SUCH PERSON SHALL NOT BE SO RELEASED IF THERE APPEAR REASONABLE
GROUNDS FOR BELIEVING THAT HE HAS BEEN GUILTY OF AN OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
WITH DEATH OR IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE;
(II) SUCH PERSON SHALL NOT BE SO RELEASED IF SUCH OFFENCE IS A COGNIZABLE
OFFENCE AND HE HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY CONVICTED OF AN OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
WITH DEATH, IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE OR IMPRISONMENT FOR SEVEN YEARS OR
MORE, OR HE HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY CONVICTED ON TWO OR MORE OCCASIONS OF
A NON-BAILABLE AND COGNIZABLE OFFENCE.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TRADITIONAL OFFENCE
AND ECONOMIC OFFENCE
• IN Y.S. JAGAN MOHAN REDDY V. CBI
THE SUPREME COURT HELD AS:  
“[…] 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 THE PUBLIC/STATE AND OTHER SIMILAR
CONSIDERATIONS WHICH ARISE WHEN, COURT IS ASKED FOR BAIL IN A NON-
BAILABLE OFFENCE
STATE OF GUJRAT V. MOHANLAL JITAMALJI PORWAL AND ANR.
THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY IS AGGRIEVED IF THE ECONOMIC OFFENDERS WHO
RUIN THE ECONOMY OF THE STATE ARE NOT BROUGHT TO BOOKS. 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

SANJAY CHANDRA V. CENTRAL BUREAU INVESTIGATION

THE SUPREME COURT REJECTING THE VIEW THAT ‘THE RIGHT TO AUTOMATIC
BAIL UNDER SECTION 436 STEMS FROM THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF
PERSONAL LIBERTY AS ENSHRINED UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION
HIGHLIGHTED A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TRADITIONAL OFFENCES AND
ECONOMIC AND OTHER OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE. THE COURT
PROMULGATED THAT EVEN AN INDIVIDUAL’S LIBERTY CAN BE CURTAILED
(REASONABLY) IF IT IS PERTINENT TO THE COURT THAT SUCH LIBERTY WILL
COME AT THE EXPENSE OF THE LARGER INTEREST OF THE SOCIETY.
SECTION 45 OF PREVENTION OF MONEY
LAUNDERING ACT, 2002
(1) NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN THE CODE OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE, 1973 (2 OF 1974), NO PERSON ACCUSED OF AN OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE FOR A TERM OF IMPRISONMENT OF MORE THAN THREE YEARS
UNDER PART A OF THE SCHEDULE SHALL BE RELEASED ON BAIL OR ON HIS
OWN BOND UNLESS-
• (I) THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HAS BEEN GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO OPPOSE
THE APPLICATION FOR SUCH RELEASE; AND
• (II) WHERE THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR OPPOSES THE APPLICATION, THE
COURT IS SATISFIED THAT THERE ARE REASONABLE GROUNDS FOR
BELIEVING THAT HE IS NOT GUILTY OF SUCH OFFENCE AND THAT HE IS NOT
LIKELY TO COMMIT ANY OFFENCE WHILE ON BAIL: PROVIDED THAT A
PERSON WHO IS UNDER THE AGE OF SIXTEEN YEARS OR IS A WOMAN OR IS
SICK OR INFIRM, MAY BE RELEASED ON BAIL, IF THE SPECIAL COURT SO
DIRECTS
• NIKESH TARACHAND SHAH V UNION OF INDIA (2017)
THE COURT FOUND THE PROVISION UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT
REQUIRED PROOF OF INNOCENCE FOR BOTH THE PREDICATE OFFENCE—FROM
WHICH THE PROCEEDS OF CRIME HAD ARISEN—AND THE MONEY LAUNDERING
OFFENCE. THE COURT FOUND THAT THERE WAS NO NEXUS BETWEEN THE
PREDICATE OFFENCE AND THE ONEROUS BAIL PROVISION IN SECTION 45.
GRAVITY OF THE OFFENCE AND AFFECT LARGE
PART OF THE SOCIETY

• IN SERIOUS FRAUD INVESTIGATION OFFICE V. NITTIN JOHARI WHERE THE

COURT WHILE DEALING WITH A BAIL APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 212(6) OF
THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013, WHICH IMPOSES SIMILAR TWIN CONDITIONS FOR
BAIL, ONCE AGAIN REITERATED THAT ECONOMIC OFFENCES CONSTITUTE A
CLASS APART AND NEED TO BE VIEWED SERIOUSLY AND CONSIDERED AS
GRAVE OFFENCES AFFECTING ECONOMY OF COUNTRY AS A WHOLE AND
THEREBY POSING SERIOUS THREAT TO THE FINANCIAL HEALTH OF THE
COUNTRY.
• ROHIT TANDON VS. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
THE SUPREME COURT, IN 2017, IN THIS CASE  IN WHICH THE ACCUSED WAS INVOLVED
IN ILLEGAL POSSESSION AND SUPPLY OF NEW CURRENCY AFTER DEMONETIZATION,
HAS REFUSED TO GRANT BAIL, GIVEN THE GRAVITY OF THE OFFENCE, ADMISSION OF
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AGAINST THE ACCUSED AND ABSENCE OF REASONABLE
GROUND TO ESTABLISH THE INNOCENCE OF THE ACCUSED. THE COURT WHILE
REJECTING APPLICATION FOR BAIL HELD THAT IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO HOLD THAT THE
APPELLANT IS NOT LIKELY TO COMMIT ANY SIMILAR OFFENCE WHILE ON BAIL.
• GAUTAM KUNDU V. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
THE SUPREME COURT IN THIS CASE, WHEREIN THE PETITIONERS WHO WERE
CHARGED WITH OFFENCES UNDER THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA
ACT, 1992 (SEBI) AND THE PMLA ACT HAD APPLIED FOR BAIL IN THE SUPREME COURT.
APEX COURT STATED THAT-
“ECONOMIC OFFENCES UNLIKE REGULAR OFFENCES ARE NOT STANDALONE IN NATURE
AND THEY ACT AS FACILITATORS FOR OTHER CRIMES. THEY HELP DRAIN PUBLIC FUNDS,
ACCELERATE ECONOMIC INEQUALITIES AND CAN BE USED TO UNDERMINE AND
DESTABILISE NATIONS.”
IMPORTANCE OF CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION
• IN STATE V. ANIL SHARMA WHERE AN EX-MINISTER WAS CHARGED WITH
OFFENCES UNDER THE PC ACT AND HAD BEEN GRANTED ANTICIPATORY BAIL
BY THE HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT, SUPREME COURT OVERTURNED
THE ORDER AND HELD THAT
• CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION IS QUALITATIVELY MORE ELICITATION-
ORIENTED THAN QUESTIONING A SUSPECT WHO IS WELL ENSCONCED WITH
A FAVOURABLE ORDER UNDER SECTION 438 OF THE CODE.
• IN A CASE LIKE THIS EFFECTIVE INTERROGATION OF A SUSPECTED PERSON
IS OF TREMENDOUS ADVANTAGE IN DISINTERRING MANY USEFUL
INFORMATION AND ALSO MATERIALS WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN
CONCEALED. SUCCESS IN SUCH INTERROGATION WOULD ELUDE IF THE
SUSPECTED PERSON KNOWS THAT HE IS WELL PROTECTED AND INSULATED
BY A PRE-ARREST BAIL ORDER DURING THE TIME HE IS INTERROGATED.
• THE SUPREME COURT IN P. CHIDAMBARAM V. DIRECTORATE OF
ENFORCEMENT, WHEREIN THE COURT LAID DOWN THAT:
A DELICATE BALANCE IS REQUIRED TO BE ESTABLISHED BETWEEN
SAFEGUARDING THE PERSONAL LIBERTY OF AN INDIVIDUAL AND THE
SOCIETAL INTEREST, AND REFUSAL TO GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL CANNOT BE
TERMED AS A DENIAL OF THE RIGHTS CONFERRED UPON THE ACCUSED UNDER
ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. IN THIS CASE, THE COURT ALSO
RECOGNISED THAT MONEY LAUNDERING POSES A SERIOUS THREAT NOT ONLY
TO THE ECONOMY OF THE COUNTRY BUT ALSO TO ITS INTEGRITY AND
SOVEREIGNTY.
TAMPERING WITH THE EVIDENCE

• HIMANSHU CHANDRAVADAN DESAI V. STATE OF GUJARAT

THE SUPREME COURT DECIDED THAT HAVING REGARD TO HUGE AMOUNTS
INVOLVED IN THE SYSTEMATIC FRAUD, THERE IS DANGER OF THE APPELLANTS
ABSCONDING, IF RELEASED ON BAIL, OR ATTEMPTING TO TAMPER WITH THE
EVIDENCES BY PRESSURIZING WITNESSES
• STATE V. CAPTAIN JAGJIT SINGH
IN THIS CASE TRIPLE TEST I.E., ‘NECESSITY TEST’ FOR PRE-ARREST BAIL WERE
GIVEN BY THE APEX COURT ALONG WITH OTHER TESTS TO GRANT BAIL
1. ABSCONDENCE,
2. TAMPERING THE EVIDENCE,
3. THE POSSIBILITY OF INFLUENCING THE WITNESSES.
BURDEN OF PROOF

• SECTION 24 IN THE PREVENTION OF MONEY-LAUNDERING ACT, 2002

IN THE CASE OF A PERSON CHARGED WITH THE OFFENCE OF MONEY-LAUNDERING UNDER
SECTION 3, THE AUTHORITY OR COURT SHALL, UNLESS THE CONTRARY IS PROVED,
PRESUME THAT SUCH PROCEEDS OF CRIME ARE INVOLVED IN MONEY-LAUNDERING
• CBI V. RAMENDU CHATTOPADHYAY
IN THIS CASE THE ACCUSED, WHO WAS CHARGED WITH PLAYING A KEY ROLE IN THE
PROMOTION OF A CHIT FUND SCAM IN THE STATE OF ORISSA WAS REMANDED TO
CUSTODY BY CANCELLING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
GRANTING HIM INTERIM BAIL.
AT THIS JUNCTURE, IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION THAT STATUTES SUCH AS THE PMLA
ALSO FUNCTION UNDER A REVERSE BURDEN OF PROOF SYSTEM WHERE THE INITIAL
BURDEN OF PROVING THAT THE ACCUSED IS NOT GUILTY OF THE OFFENCES THAT HE IS
CHARGED WITH LIES ON HIM AND NOT THE PROSECUTION IF PROSECUTION ESTABLISHES
PRIME FACIE CASE AND UNTIL HE DISCHARGES SUCH BURDEN, THE COURT SHALL
PRESUME HIM TO BE GUILTY
CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH BAIL COULD BE
GRANTED
IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION HEREIN THAT THE PRECEDENTS CITED HEREINABOVE DO
NOT CREATE AN ABSOLUTE BAR AGAINST THE GRANT OF BAIL AND THE SUPREME
COURT HAS CATEGORICALLY RULED THAT MERELY BECAUSE THE ALLEGATIONS
AGAINST AN ACCUSED ARE OF GRAVE ECONOMIC OFFENCES, IT IS NOT A RULE THAT
BAIL SHOULD BE DENIED IN EVERY CASE SINCE THERE IS NO SUCH BAR CREATED IN
THE RELEVANT ENACTMENT PASSED BY THE LEGISLATURE NOR DOES THE BAIL
JURISPRUDENCE PROVIDE SO
SANJAY CHANDRA V. CBI
THE SUPREME COURT GRANTED THE ACCUSED BAIL AND HELD THAT: 
WE ARE CONSCIOUS OF THE FACT THAT THE ACCUSED ARE CHARGED WITH ECONOMIC
OFFENCES OF HUGE MAGNITUDE. WE ARE ALSO CONSCIOUS OF THE FACT THAT THE
OFFENCES ALLEGED, IF PROVED, MAY JEOPARDIZE THE ECONOMY OF THE COUNTRY. AT
THE SAME TIME, WE CANNOT LOSE SIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THE INVESTIGATING AGENCY
HAS ALREADY COMPLETED INVESTIGATION AND THE CHARGE SHEET IS ALREADY FILED
BEFORE THE SPECIAL JUDGE, CBI, NEW DELHI. THEREFORE, THEIR PRESENCE IN THE
CUSTODY MAY NOT BE NECESSARY FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION
P. CHIDAMBARAM V. DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT
• THE COURT OBSERVED:
“THERE IS NO HARD AND FAST RULE REGARDING GRANT OR REFUSAL TO GRANT
OF BAIL. EACH CASE HAS TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES
OF EACH CASE AND ON ITS OWN MERITS. THE DISCRETION OF THE COURT HAS TO
BE EXERCISED JUDICIOUSLY AND NOT IN ARBITRARY MANNER. AT THIS STAGE
ITSELF, IT IS NECESSARY FOR US TO INDICATE THAT WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT
THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED SOLICITOR GENERAL THAT “FLIGHT RISK” OF
ECONOMIC OFFENDERS SHOULD BE LOOKED AT AS A NATIONAL PHENOMENON
AND BE DEALT WITH IN THAT MANNER MERELY BECAUSE CERTAIN OTHER
OFFENDERS HAVE FLOWN OUT OF THE COUNTRY. THE SAME CANNOT, IN OUR
VIEW, BE PUT IN A STRAIGHT-JACKET FORMULA SO AS TO DENY BAIL TO THE ONE
WHO IS BEFORE THE COURT, DUE TO THE CONDUCT OF OTHER OFFENDERS, IF
THE PERSON UNDER CONSIDERATION IS OTHERWISE ENTITLED TO BAIL ON THE
MERIT OF HIS OWN CASE. HENCE, IN OUR VIEW, SUCH CONSIDERATION
INCLUDING AS TO “FLIGHT RISK” IS TO BE MADE ON INDIVIDUAL BASIS BEING
UNINFLUENCED BY THE UNCONNECTED CASES, MORE SO, WHEN THE PERSONAL
LIBERTY IS INVOLVED.”
THANK YOU