Karnataka High Court
Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla vs State Of Karnataka on 26 March, 2014
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7579/2013
BETWEEN:
Sri. Manoj Kumar Shukla,
S/o. Late Devitadin Shukla,
Aged about 49 years,
Stanley Road,
Judges Colony,
Allahabad (UP)
Permanent Resident of
VII/PO: Rafiganj,
Dist: Ambedkar Nagar (UP),
Pin-224 139. .. PETITIONER
(By Sri. Sateesh. M. Doddamani, Adv.)
AND:
State of Karnataka,
By Central Bureau of
Investigation - ACB,
Bangalore-560 024.
Rep. by its SPP. .. RESPONDENT
(By Sri. C.H. Jadhav, Senior Counsel and SPP)
This criminal petition is filed under Section 439 of the
Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in R.C.
No.15(A)/2012 of CBI/ACB/Bangalore, and Spl;
C.C.No.135/2013 on the file of the XXVI Addl. City Civil and
S.J. and Spl. Judge for CBI cases, Bangalore, for the offences
punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 379, 411, 447, 468
2
and 471 of IPC, Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention
of Corruption Act, Section 24 of Karnataka Forest Act, 1963
and Section 21 read with Section 4(1), 4(1)(A) and 23 of the
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.
This petition having been heard and reserved for
orders, coming on for pronouncement of orders, this day, the
Court made the following:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.7 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 379, 411, 447, 468 and 471 of IPC, Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, Section 24 of Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 and Section 21 read with Section 4(1), 4(1)(A) and 23 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, registered in R.C. No.15(A)/2012 and pending in Spl. C.C. No.135/2013.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the registered organization by name Samaja Parivarthana Samsthe has approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court alleging that, there is illegal mining in Bellary District which has resulted in huge loss of revenue to the Government and despite complaints; no action has been taken by the Government. Hence it sought necessary order/directions from Hon'ble 3 Supreme Court to stop the illegal mining and transport thereof.
3. The writ petition (Civil)No.562/2009 filed by Samaja Parivarthana Samsthe was heard by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in the said case, the Hob'ble supreme Court directed the CBI to register a case against the companies, who have indulged in the illegal mining. In pursuance thereof, CBI, ACB, Bengaluru, registered the above case in RC No.15(A)/2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 379, 411, 420, 227, 447, 468, 471 of IPC, Sec.13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 26 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and Section 21 read with Section 4(1), 4(1) and 23 of MMRD Act, 1957, against the Director of M/s. Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt. Ltd., unknown officials of N.M.D.C, unknown Public Servant and others.
4. After registration of the FIR, investigation officer proceeded with the investigation of the case and after recording of the statements of the witnesses and collection of 4 the documentary evidence, filed charge sheet against accused persons on 27/5/2013 and Sri. Manoj Kumar Shukla, the petitioner herein has been arraigned as Accused No.7.
5. It is submitted that, an application under 439 was filed before the Trial Court specifically contending that he is innocent of the alleged offences and he has been falsely implicated by the Investigating agency in the above case. It was emphasized that the bail is to be granted to accused as of a right and denial thereof is an exception. It is also emphases the date of arrest of accused No.7 being 24.05.2013 and the charge sheet having been filed on 27.05.2013 clearly demonstrates that the investigating agency has effected arrest of accused No.7 in order to complete the formality of arrest though there was no compelling circumstances to arrest accused No.7.
6. The petitioner further contended that the investigation was not conducted in proper and efficacious manner and the investigating agency has conducted the 5 investigation in a perfunctory manner despite a clear directions by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The petitioner also pleaded that since the charge sheet is now filed and having regard to the nature of the offences alleged against accused No.7, the continuation of the accused in judicial custody is no longer necessary. The petitioner contended and relied upon the judgment rendered in the case of SANJAY CHANDRA AND OTHERS V/s. CBI reported in (2012)1 SCC 40.
7. The petitioner further contended that the Halgundi Check post not being constituted in accordance with law, is illegal from day one. A check post in the Forest Area must be only by a Government Order duly notified. The Halgundi Check Post was never notified and hence, not legal. Removal of Check Post would never be considered an illegal action. The petitioner further contended that he did not remove the check post. The deputations of officials in the Halgundi Check Post were cancelled on the recommendation of concerned officer i.e., jurisdictional DCF, who recommended cancellation of the deputations. Further the period of 6 deputation was over and the officials also had given representation to cancel the deputations.
8. The petitioner who is accused No.7, was a conservator of forest has no role to play in the grant of any mining lease or the construction of any road within the mining area or mining plan or issuance of MDPs (Bulk Permits) or trip sheets or issuance of forest permits, nor does he have any role to play in the physical checking of movement of iron ore. The procedure of new road involves the same procedure as far as the Mining lease. The petitioner further contended that the statements given by charge sheet witnesses/accused persons are not relevant consideration for the purpose of deciding the bail petition. So far as the statement given by the Petitioner under 164 Cr.P.C. is concerned, a submission was made that the said statement was given under a mental depression, misguided and appropriate steps to be taken to retract/ take back the statement made by him under 164 Cr.P.C.
7
9. It is further contended that, pendency of other cases and non filing of charge sheet in the other cases is not relevant criteria for deciding bail application. No sanction is obtained for prosecuting the petitioner. The petitioner has not approached any other court for similar relief and no other proceedings are pending before any court on the same cause of action. On the basis of the said complaint, the case was registered by the respondent police against the unknown persons. During investigation, the petitioner was arrayed as accused No.7.
10. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused No.7 and the learned Senior Counsel and Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent- State.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no material collected as against the petitioner to show his involvement in the commission of the alleged offence. The learned counsel submitted that at the time of taking cognizance in the offence, no sanction order was 8 obtained from the competent authority for the prosecution of the present petitioner. Hence, the very taking cognizance itself is illegal. The learned counsel further made submission that Halagundi check post is not a notified check post and no notification was issued by the Government. Therefore, even if it is removed as alleged by the prosecution as per Rule 158 of the Karnataka Forest Rules, is not an illegal act. The petitioner never removed the staff from the said check post, but as they were on deputation basis working in the said check post, they were sent back to their parental department. During the period of the work, the petitioner has done in the said capacity. There was no complaint that he has threatened any of the rival mining owners. The learned Counsel further submitted that the statement said to have been made by the present petitioner under section 164 Cr.P.C. when he was in depressed mood and it is not because of his free will and volition, cannot be relied upon at this stage. The learned counsel made submission that the wife of the petitioner is suffering from serious illness and there is nobody to take care of her. The investigation of the case is completed and 9 the chare sheet has been filed. By imposing reasonable conditions, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel relied on the following decisions:
i. Sanjay Chandra V/s. C.B.I. - (2012) 1 SCC 40 ii. Criminal Appeal Nos.1590-1591 of 2013 @ Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Nos. 6652-6653 of 2013.
12. As against this, learned Senior Counsel and SPP during the course of the arguments submitted that because of illegal mining activities and transportation of iron ore by accused persons, there is wrongful loss to the State exchequer to the tune of Rs.198 crores. He submitted that there is illegal sale and export of iron ore to an extent of 6.05 lakh metric tonne. The petitioner-accused NO.7 in collusion with accused No.1-Gali Janardhana Reddy destroyed the boundary pillars and removed the check post in the various areas and thereby facilitated easy transportation of iron ore by accused No.1. He also submitted that even in respect of accused No.7, sanction has been obtained on 9.10.2013. Even looking to the sanction order at para 11 and 12, it is 10 clearly mentioned about illegal acts done by the present petitioner and submitted that when the sanction order has already been issued by the Government, the question of assailing order of taking cognizance will not survive for consideration. In this connection, the learned SPP relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in SURESH KUMAR BHIKAMCHAND JAIN VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER reported in 2013(2) SCC (Crl.) 229. He also drew the attention of this Court to para 17 to 19 of the said judgment and made submission that contention of the petitioner that without there being the sanction order cognizance has been taken is illegal, will not sustain at all. He made submission that there is prima facie material placed by the prosecution to show the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offences. The offences are serious in nature and hence, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail.
13. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR and the complaints. I have also perused the order of the lower court on the bail application so also the 11 decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the parties referred to above.
14. As per the charge sheet, it is the allegation of the prosecution that because of illegal mining activities and transportation and sale of iron ore, there is huge loss to an extent of Rs.198.00 crore to the State exchequer. So far as the present petitioner is concerned, specific allegations are as under:
" That, Shri. S. Muthaiah (A-2) and Shri. Manoj Kumar Shukla (A-7) in collusion with Shri. G. Janardhana Reddy (A-1) and his associates removed the Andhra-Karnataka border forest Cehck Post existing at Halkundi in October 2008 to facilitate illegal transportation of iron ore without permits. They colluded with Shri G. Janardhana Reddy and his associates and facilitated illegal mining and transportation of iron ore in Bellary District. They enabled shri. G. Janardhana Reddy (A-1) and his associates to construct an approach road to Dalmia Mines through the lease hold area of M/s. Veeyam Mines and to do large scale illegal mining in the Dalmia Mines during 2009-10 by committing criminal trespass and destroying boundary 12 pillars. They allowed Shri. G. Janardhana Reddy (A-1) and his associates to do illegal mining and store illegally extracting iron ore in Lakshminarayana Mines, P K Halli plot, SBM lot, PK Halli, MSPL Stock Yard, Ingalagi, Veeyam plot, Ingalagi, Karapudi Plot, Kariganur, Swastik plot, Bellary road, V Nagappa Stock Yard, Kallahalli, SVK Mines and plot, Vyasankere; SVK Plot, Danapur and other plots/stock yards falling under the jurisdiction of Bellary Forest dvision. They conceded to the demands of Shri G. Janardhana Reddy (A-1) and his cronies and harassed their rival mine owners and favoured the mines controlled by Shri. G. Janardhana Reddy (A-1). They did not take action on the reports submitted by his subordinate officials regarding illegal mining activity in the forest areas in Bellary District. They accepted illegal gratification and allowed illegal mining and transportation. They aided shri. G. Janardhana Reddy (A-1) in usurping 40-60% of iron ore form mine owners. "
15. Before coming to the merits of the case, let me refer to the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in W.P (Civil) No.562/2009 dated 18.4.2013. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under: 13
" 5. We may now proceed to notice the relevant part of the two Reports of the CEC dated 3.2.2012 and 13.3.2012, as referred to hereinabove.
'IV. CLASSIFICATION OF LEASES IN DIFFERENT CATEGORIES ON THE BASIS OF THE LEVEL OF ILLEGALITIES FOUND 27. xxxxx 28. xxxxx 29. xxxxx 30. The "Category-C" comprises of leases
wherein (i) the illegal mining by way of (a) mining pits outside the sanctioned lease area have been found to be more than 10% of the lease area and/or (b) over burden/waste dumps outside the sanctioned lease areas have been found to be more than 15% of the lease areas and/or (ii) the leases found to be involved in flagrant violation of the Forest (Conservation) Act and/or found to be involved in illegal mining in other lease areas. The number of such leases comes to 49.
RECOMMENDATIONS (as modified by CEC by its Report dated 13.3.2012. Items 1 to IV of the Report dated 3.2.2012 stood replaced by Items A 14 to I of the Report dated 13.3.2012 which are reproduced below along with Items V to XIV of the initial Report dated 3.2.2012)."
Item Nos.VI and VII of sub-para 30 reads as under:
" (VI) In respect of the mining leases falling in 'CATEGORY-C' (details are given at annexure-R-
11 to this Report) it is recommended that (a) such leases should be directed to be cancelled/determined on account of these leases having been found to be involved in substantial illegal mining outside the sanctioned lease areas
(b) the entire sale proceeds of the existing stock of the iron ore of these leases should be retained by the Monitoring Committee and (c) the implementation of the R&R Plan should be at the cost of the lessee;
(VII) the area of the mining leases falling in the 'Category-C', after cancellation of the mining leases may be directed to be allotted/assigned through a transparent process of bidding to the highest bidder (s) from amongst the end users. The floor price for this purpose should be fixed on the basis of the market value of the permissible annual production of the iron ore during the period of the agreements/lease period. The iron ore produced from such mines should be used for captive use only and no 15 sale/export will be permissible. The detailed schemes in this regard should be prepared and implemented after obtaining the permission of this Hon'ble Court."
So also para 39 of the said judgment is as under:
" We make it clear that we have not understood the above statement as an admission on the part of the Federation and it is on a consideration of the totality of the facts placed before us that we accept the findings of the survey conducted by the Joint Team constituted by the orders of this Court and the boundaries of each of the leases determined on that basis. We further direct that in supersession of all orders either of the authorities of the State or Courts, as may be, the boundaries of leases fixed by the Joint Team will henceforth be the boundaries of each of the leases who will have the benefit of the lease area as determined by the Joint Team. All proceedings pending in any court with regard to boundaries of the leases involved in the present proceeding shall stand adjudicated by means of present order and no such question would be opened for re-examination by anybody or authority."16
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court passed an order in Petitions for Spl. Leave to appeal to the Nos.7366-7367/2010 dated 23.9.2011. The relevant paragraphs are as under:
" (ii) The report of CEC shows that serious illegalities have taken place in respect of mining lease No. 2434 of M/s. Associated Mining Company ("M/s. AMC" for short). The Report shows serious illegalities having taken place in respect of said mining lease by way of illegal grant of renewal of boundary pillars being completely different from the sanctioned lease sketch and quantity of iron ore shown to have been produced and dispatched from the mining lease being far in excess of the quantity that could have been physically produced and dispatched from the mining lease area. Besides illegalities having taken place in respect of the mining lease, as indicated above, other illegalities having taken place in respect of the mining lease, as indicated above, other illegalities are also enumerated in the said Report (see paras 8, 9 and 10 of the Report).
Such illegalities are also referred to in the Report dated 27.07.2011 of the Karnataka Lokayuktha.
On going through the Report of CEC, this Court prima facie is satisfied that at the relevant time there existed linkages between the alleged 17 illegal mining in Bellary reserved forest falling in District Anantpur in Andhra Pradesh and the above mentioned illegalities in Bellary District of Karnataka. It appears from the Report that amongst various illegalities, one of the cited illegalities is that the material illegally extracted by M/s AMC was routed (transported) to the nearest Port in Vishakapatnam through District Anantpur in Andhra Pradesh. For this reason, we want investigations into above alleged illegalities to be carried out by CBI.
On the next date of hearing, we also want to know from CBI the status of its investigations which CBI has undertaken in respect of a mining company, M/s. Oblapuram Mining Company Private Limited in Andhra Pradesh vide FIR No. RC 17A/2009-CBI (Hyderabad)."
17. Now coming to the case on hand, it is the contention of the petitioner that without there being a sanction order, cognizance has been taken which is illegal. In this connection, I have perused the decision, the citations relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in ANIL KUMAR AND OTHERS VS. M.K. AIYAPPA AND ANOTHER - Crl.P. No.1590-91/2013 at Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Nos.6652-6653/2013.
18
Para 14 of the said judgment reads as thus:
"Further, this Court in Criminal Appeal No.257 of 2011 in the case of General Officer, Commanding V. CBI and opined as follows:
"Thus, in view of the above, the law on the issue of sanction can be summarized to the effect that the question of sanction is of paramount importance for protecting a public servant who has acted in good faith while performing his duty. In order that the public servant may not be unnecessarily harassed on a complaint of an unscrupulous person, it is obligatory on the part of the executive authority to protect him. If the law requires sanction, and the court proceeds against a public servant without sanction, the public servant has a right to raise the issue of jurisdiction as the entire action may be rendered void ab-initio."
18. It is no doubt true that according to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is observed that if the law requires sanction and court proceedings against the public servant without sanction, public servant has right to raise issue of jurisdiction as the entire action may be rendered ab initio.
19
19. In Suresh Kumar's case (supra), relied upon by the learned SPP, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the propositions as under:
A. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - S.167(2) provisos (a)(i) and (ii) and ss.197 and 309 - Right of accused to statutory /default bail under - Invocation of -Held, not available where charge- sheet had been filed within period stipulated in S.167(2) Cr.P.C. regardless of whether sanction to prosecute, even if required, had been obtained or not - Mere failure of prosecution to obtain sanction to prosecute the accused, as a result whereof no cognizance of offence was taken, held, does not entitle accused (MLA and Minister in State Government) to grant of statutory bail under S.167(2) - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Ss. 19, 7 and 13 - Public Accountability, Vigilance and Prevention of Corruption - Prosecution of People in Power/Politicians - Penal Code, 1860, Ss. 120-B, 409, 411, 406, 408, 465, 466, 468, 471, 177, 109 r/s S. 34. B. Criminal Proceedure Code, 1973 - S. 167(2) provisos(a)(i) &(ii) - Obligation under, of Magistrate/Court concerned to release accused on bail on non-filing of charge-sheet within period stipulated therein - Nature of, reiterated, 20 is mandatory - In such a case, any detention beyond the stipulated period would be illegal. "
20. Therefore, looking to the principles enunciated in the decision of the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, if the charge sheet is filed within the stipulated period, and if the sanction to prosecution has not obtained, it does not entitle the accused for grant of statutory bail under Section 167 of Cr.P.C. In the case on hand, it is not the allegation of the petitioner that while considering the bail application by the trial court, that charge sheet was not filed within the stipulated time and hence he is also entitled for grant of bail as per the provisions of Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. The application before the trial court seeking his release on bail was also filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C,. and the present petition is also filed under section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there was no sanction order obtained at the time of taking cognizance of offence and hence the entire proceedings are vitiated cannot be accepted, at this stage, that too, while considering the bail application.
21
21. Regarding contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that Halagundi check post was not a notified check post and therefore, its removal is not at all prohibited and the alleged act of removal of the said check post is in accordance with Rule 158 of the Karnataka Forest Rules is concerned, the allegations in the charge sheet is that the present petitioner in conspiracy with accused No.1 and the other persons removed the check post and has transferred the staff working in the said check post to other place and thereby facilitated accused No.1 in illegal transportation of iron ore without there being any checking at all. It is also the case of the prosecution that by removing the said check post which was at the border of the Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka, the present petitioner has facilitated free movement of the vehicles without there being any check and thereby caused loss of collecting forest tax in respect of the vehicles carrying on the iron ore.
22. I have perused the statement made by the present petitioner before the 17th Additional Chief Metropolitan 22 Magistrate, Bangalore dated 5.6.2013 recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. On that day, when the petitioner desired to make a statement before the Magistrate Court, the concerned Magistrate Court felt that it is necessary to give reasonable time to the accused person to think over the matter and to make a statement. So seven days time was granted to petitioner and again, when the matter was posted on 12.6.2013, on which day, petitioner submitted that he was not feeling well. Therefore, again when the matter was posted on 20.6.2013 giving him further seven days time, on that day, he came before the Magistrate and gave his confessional statement. Looking to the said statement, the Magistrate put questions as to whether the CBI officers or constables or agency relating to this case have met him in 15 days. The petitioner said 'no'. Again, the petitioner was questioned as to whether he had sufficient time for the past 15 days to think over the matter and give statement. The petitioner said 'yes, I had sufficient time to think over the matter'. He stated that he was in judicial custody for the past 15 days. Again, the petitioner was asked as to whether still he intends to give confessional statement. He said 'yes'. 23 For the question whether there was any compel or inducement by the CBI to the petitioner to give statement on the assurance that he would be made an approver in the case, for that also, the petitioner said 'no'. So looking to the confessional statement recorded by the Magistrate and the procedures followed goes to show that the statement given by the present petitioner was without there being any inducement, threat and on his own free will and volition.
23. Perusing the statement, the petitioner has stated that because of pressure of accused No.1 Gali Janardhan Reddy who told him to remove Halagundi border check post functioning in Bellary and he had removed the same. He has also stated that he has transferred the staff to other place who were deputed to work in the said check post. This confessional statement given by the petitioner goes to show and it probablise the allegation made by the prosecution against the petitioner of criminal conspiracy and also the other alleged offence committed in collusion with accused NO.1 and other accused persons in the case. 24
24. Now looking to the averments made by the petitioner in the bail petition that the confessional statement was made by him when he was in a depression mood and therefore, it cannot be relied upon, the grounds pleaded in the bail petition regarding removing of Halagundi check post are all contrary to what the petitioner has stated before the Magistrate Court in his confessional statement. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that it was not a notified check post and its removal is not illegal as per Rule 158 of the Rules cannot be accepted at all. Apart from that, the materials collected by the prosecution coupled with confessional statement of the present petitioner goes to show that it is because of conspiracy by accused No.1 with petitioner and accused No.2, who were serving as Conservator of Forest and deputy Conservator of Forest, respectively, check post has been removed facilitating accused No.1 to do all his illegal activities of transportation of iron ore and thereby caused loss to the State exchequer. The act of the petitioner clearly goes to show that even though being the public servant working in the forest 25 department, he was suppose to take all precautionary measure to prevent the illegal transportation of the iron ore, but he colluded with accused NO.1 and other accused persons and joined hands in illegal transportation of the iron ore. Therefore, there is gross negligence and dereliction of duty on the part of the petitioner in discharging his duties as the public servant.
25. Therefore, looking to the entire charge sheet material coupled with confessional statement of the petitioner, the prosecution has placed prima facie material to show the involvement of petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence which is serious in nature and affects the economy of the country causing loss to the State exchequer to a tune of Rs.198 Crores.
26. I have perused the decision relied on by the learned- Counsel for the petitioner in Sanjay Chandra's case (supra), wherein the Apex Court has laid down the principles as under:
26
" A. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Ss. 437 and 439 - Bail - Conditional bail to balance competing considerations - Relevant considerations in granting such conditional bail
- Gravity of alleged offence - Severity of punishment prescribed in law - Both parameters, held, ought to be taken into consideration simultaneously - Gravity alone cannot be decisive ground to deny bail - Competing factors to be balanced by court while exercising its discretion - Protection of personal liberty against securing attendance of accused at trial - Presumed innocence till a person is convicted - Hardship caused to individual on account of detention before conviction - Unnecessary burden on state to keep a person who is yet to be proved guilty - Constitutionally protected liberty, held, must be respected unless detention becomes a necessity - Bail is the rule and jail an exception - Each case however to be decided on its own merits - Apprehended tampering of evidence - Denial of bail on this count - Held, to be resorted to in most extraordinary circumstances only - Lengthy trial which may prolong beyond maximum sentence awardable under relevant law - Relevance of.
- 2 G Spectrum Scam case - Charge-sheet already filed - Telecom licences under Unified 27 access services (UAS) policy and radio spectrum alleged to have been obtained by indulging in cheating and forgery - Eligibility criteria manipulated - Public exchequer alleged to have suffered huge loss - Appellants charged for various economic offences under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and IPC - Seventeen persons booked for scam - Statement of witnesses running into several hundred pages -
Other documentary evidence also too voluminous - Trial in these circumstances likely to take considerable time - Longest sentence that can be imposed is seven years' imprisonment under 1988 Act - No serious apprehension raised before the Supreme Court that accused persons, if released on bail, would interfere with trial or tamper evidence.
- Balanced approach, held, is to grant bail subject to certain conditions rather than to keep individuals under detention for an indefinite period - liberty also given to CBI to seek cancellation/modification of bail if appellants violate conditions imposed on them.
- Trial Court and High court, further held, erred in denying bail solely by taking into account seriousness of offences, deep-rooted conspiracy involved and loss of public money, overlooking other relevant aspects - Prevention of Corruption 28 Act, 1988 - S.13 - Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 415, 420, 109, 120-B, 463, 464, 468 and 471 - Telecommunications Laws - Telecom services - Licence and spectrum obtained fraudulently - Criminal liability.
B. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 -
Ss.437 and 439 - Prejudices which may be avoided in deciding bail matters - public scams, scandals and heinous offences - public sentiments and disapproval of alleged misconduct - Bail, held, ought not be denied to teach lesson to a person whose offence is yet to be proved - conditional bail, as a solution."
27. In Y.S.JAGAN MOHAN REDDY V. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION reported in 2013 AIR SCW 2800, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
" Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offence having deep rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds needs to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as 29 a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country.
While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of evidence in support of thereof, the severity of 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 interest of public/state and other similar considerations. "
28. Perusing the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra's case, referred above, their Lordships in the said decision have held that each case has to be decided on its own merit. Therefore, looking to the materials on record and in view of the above discussion that there is prima facie case made out by the prosecution about involvement of the present petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence that he has misused his official position and conspired with accused No.1 and the other accused persons in illegal transportation of the iron ore and thereby committed the alleged offence and since the serious 30 allegations are made against the petitioner about his involvement in commission of the alleged offence, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the present petitioner. There are no grounds to allow the petition and release the petitioner on bail.
The petition is accordingly rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE Cs/-