Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anand Kumar Adwani vs Cbi on 8 February, 2017
MCRC-1807-2017
(ANAND KUMAR ADWANI Vs CBI)
08-02-2017
Shri Anil Khare, learned senior counsel with Shri Jasneet Singh Hora,
learned counsel for applicants namely, Anand Kumar Adwani, Pankaj
Adwani, Sanjay Advani and Rajesh Kumar Demba.
Shri J. K. Jain, learned Assistant Solicitor General, for the
respondentâCBI, ACB, Bhopal.
Heard arguments.
Perused case diary and material on record.
This is the first bail application filed by the applicants under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in Crime No.RC0082014A0007 registered with the respondent against them and nine other co-accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC and 13(1)(d) r.w. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The prosecution case is that during the period between the years 2008 and 2013, the co-accused persons namely, Y. D. Pawar, Naman Mukul Aind, V. K. Mishra, R. K. Mahto, Yuvraj Mohan, Anokhilal Vishwakarma, A. K. Agnihotri, Ashwini Kumar Vyas and Dinesh Kumar Soni were in the service of Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited Bhopal (for short ''the BHELâ). They, having entered into criminal conspiracies with the applicants, have obtained for the applicants and themselves pecuniary advantage to the tune of Rs.98,60,835/- (ninety eight lac sixty thousand eight hundred thirty five) by abusing their official positions and caused corresponding loss to the BHEL.
Learned senior counsel for the applicants submit that on 16.12.2016 the respondent has filed the charge-sheet against the applicants and the co-accused persons before the CBI Court, Bhopal (Shri Ravindra Kumar Bhadrasen). He submits that the applicants were not arrested during the investigation of the case by the Investigating Officer of the case for interrogations and other purposes. He submits that the respondent had informed the applicants in advance regarding the filing of the charge- sheet before the said Court on 16.12.2016. He submits that having been apprehensive the said Court may take the applicants into custody at the time of their appearance before it, they had filed the applications for grant of anticipatory bail. But their bail applications were rejected by the said Court without considering the fact situation of the case in right perspective. He submits that the offences are purely economic in nature and that the applicants are falsely implicated in the case. In the circumstance, if they appear before the said Court in future, they may be taken into custody by the Presiding Judge. He lastly submits that this court has recently granted anticipatory bail to co-accused persons namely, R. K. Mahto, Yuvraj Mohan, Anokhilal Vishwakarma, A. K. Agnihotri and Naman Mukul Aind. The applicants and said co-accused persons are similarly placed in the case. Upon these submissions, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants. Learned A.S.G. confirms that the charge-sheet had been filed in the case on 16.12.2016. He also confirms that the applicants had never been arrested in the course of investigation of the case. However, he opposes the grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants.
Having taken into consideration the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and fact situation of the case, but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that a case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants. Thus, their applications are allowed. It is ordered that if the applicants appear before the said Court on or before 27.2.2017 and the said Court takes them into custody in the case, in that event the applicants be released forthwith on bail upon their furnishing "each" a personal bond in the sum of 40,000 (Forty Thousand) rupees with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the said Court. Thereafter, they shall appear before the said Court in the course of trial on the appointed dates. It is made clear that if any of the applicants fails to appear before the said Court within the stipulated time, then this anticipatory bail order shall automatically stand cancelled in respect of him. Certified copy as per rules.
(RAJENDRA MAHAJAN) JUDGE ps