Karnataka High Court
Sri Anand Kumar @ Anand Singh vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 16 September, 2014
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2850/2014
BETWEEN:
Sri. Anand Kumar @ Anand Singh,
S/o. Sri. Prithviraj Singh,
Aged about 47 years,
R/at M/5-805,
K.R. Road,
Hospet-583 201,
Bellary District, Karnataka,
Now in the Judicial Custody
Bearing UTP No.9825/13,
Central Prison,
Parappana Agrahara,
Bangalore-560 100. .. PETITIONER
(By Sri. B.V. Achary, Adv. for
Sri. Prashanth Babu, Adv.)
AND:
Central Bureau of Investigation,
Anti Corruption Branch,
Bangalore,
No.36, Bellary Road,
Ganganagar,
Bangalore-560 032.
Rep. by the
Public Prosecutor Attached to
Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. .. RESPONDENT
(By Sri. C.H. Jadhav, Sr. Adv.)
2
This criminal petition is filed under Section 439 of the
Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Spl C.C.
No.135/2013 on the file of XLVI Addl. City Civil and S.J., &
Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Bangalore, for the offences
punishable under Sections 120B read with Sections 409,
420, 434, 447, 468, 471 of IPC.
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.10 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the offences punishable under Section 120-B read with Sections 409, 420, 434, 447, 468 and 471 of IPC registered in respondent in R.C. No.15(A)/2012 (CBI/ACB/Bangalore) and pending in Spl. C.C. No.135/2013.
2. Brief facts of the case of the petitioner as pleaded in the petition is that he has been arrayed as accused No.10 in the supplementary charge sheet dated 20.12.2013 filed in Special C.C. No.135/2013 pending before XLVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases at Bangalore. The petitioner was not arrayed as an 3 accused in FIR. As stated above, he was arrayed as accused No.10 in the supplementary charge sheet and he is alleged of having committed the offences under Section 120-B read with Sections 409, 420, 434, 447, 468 and 471 of IPC.
3. The petitioner was taken into custody by the complainant on 17.10.2013. He was remanded to police custody from 17.10.2013 to 26.10.2013. On completion of investigation and enquiry of the petitioner, the complainant requested the trial court to remand the petitioner to judicial custody. The trial court remanded the petitioner to judicial custody on 26.10.2013 and he has been in judicial custody ever since. The petitioner moved the trial court to enlarge him on bail vide his bail application dated 17.10.2013. The said application was heard by the trial court and the same was rejected vide order dated 24.4.2014 without any rhyme or reason. The petitioner being left with no other alternative, has preferred the instant petition seeking his release on bail.
4. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused No.10 and the learned Special 4 Public Prosecutor and Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent-CBI.
5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, during the course of the arguments, submitted that petitioner- accused No.10 is the partner of M/s. S.B. Minerals and also proprietor of M/s. Vaishnavi Minerals. He made the submission that on 27.5.2013, charge sheet was filed against six accused persons. At the initial stage, there were no allegations in the complaint as against the petitioner- accused No.10 nor FIR was registered against him. On the contrary, the prosecution has cited the petitioner-accused No.10 as a charge sheet witness No.195. He also submitted that another charge sheet filed was against accused Nos.7 and 8 and on 20.12.2013, third report was filed by the prosecution. He submitted that petitioner-accused No.10 applied for anticipatory bail, but the same was rejected. On 17.10.2013, the petitioner has been arrested and from 17.10.2013 till 26.10.2013, he was in police custody. The learned Senior Counsel further made the submission that M/s. S.B. Minerals is the lessee of the Government. 5 Petitioner is a sitting MLA and the uncle of the petitioner was looking after the business. He made the further submission that except the offences under the Indian Penal Code, the other offences under the other Acts are given up by the prosecution. The offences alleged are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and they are all triable by the Magistrate Court. The petitioner has surrendered his passport before the Special Judge. Therefore, there is no apprehension for the respondent that the petitioner may go abroad and not available for the trial of the case. The learned Senior Counsel further made the submission that there are 370 witnesses in the case and voluminous documents are produced. Trial is also not yet commenced and it may take long time to conclude the trial after its commencement. Hence, he made the submission that by imposing reasonable conditions, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. In support of his contention, the learned Senior Counsel has relied on the following decisions:
1. (2012)1 SCC 40 - Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
2. Manu/KA/1743/2013 - N. Vishwanathan Vs. State by Central Bureau of Investigation 6
3. Order dated 11.08.2014 in Crl. Appeal No.1685/2014 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.2814/2014 - Narendra G. Hittalamakki Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
4. Order dated 6.08.2014 in Special C.C. No.116/2012 - Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Gali Janardhan Reddy and others.
6. As against this, learned Special Public Prosecutor and Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent CBI, during the course of the arguments, submitted that the present petitioner-accused No.10 is the owner of Mines. He made submission that considering the CEC report, the Hon'ble Supreme Court gave a direction that all illegal mining and illegal transportation of the iron ore have to be investigated and action is to be taken against such persons.
The respondent CBI registered the case. The learned SPP made the submission that looking to the charge sheet materials, there is a prima facie material placed by the respondent CBI about the involvement of the present petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence. In this connection, he drew the attention of this Court to page No.136 of the charge sheet materials and made the submission that the allegations in the said charge sheet 7 clearly go to show that the present petitioner along with accused Nos.11 to 21 were the parties to the criminal conspiracy entered into themselves at Bellary and other places during the period from 1.1.2009 to 31.5.2010 and in furtherance of the said criminal conspiracy, they have excavated the iron ore illegally from various mines/forest areas in Bellary district and surrounding areas and sold the same to various traders and transported the said iron ore illegally to Belekere port for export purposes and thereby, the present petitioner has also committed the alleged offences. He also drew the attention of this Court to para Nos.12 and/to 18 of the charge sheet and submitted that these materials go to show that the present petitioner has committed the alleged offences. He further submitted that the statement of witnesses recorded by the investigating officer during investigation and the documents seized during investigation will make out prima facie case against the petitioner and hence, he is not entitled to be released on bail. In support of his contention, the learned SPP and Senior Counsel has relied upon the following decisions as per the memo dated 25.7.2014:
8
1. (2013) 3 SCC (cri) 552 Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy V/S. CBI
2. (2012) 4 SCC 134 Dipak Subhashchandra Mehta V/S. CBI & Another.
3. (2003) 3 SCC 641 Ram Narayan Popli V/S. CBI
4. (1987) 2 SCC 641 State of Gujrat V/S. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal & Another
5. Criminal Petition No. 1990/2014 Karnataka High Court, Disposed on 2/07/2014 Idli Yerriswamy V/s CBI
6. Criminal Revision Petition No. 212/2014 Karnataka High Court, Disposed on 29/04/2014 Vivek Hebbar & Anr. V/S. CBI
7. 2002 SCC (Cri) 1734 Mohd Khalid V/s. State of West Bengal
7. I have perused the averments made in the bail petitions, the materials produced by both sides in support of their contentions and the charge sheet materials so also the decisions relied upon by learned counsel for petitioner and also the learned SPP for CBI which are referred above.
8. Let me refer to statement of witnesses recorded by the investigating officer during investigation and the materials collected.9
9. Witness No.41 is one Sri. Vijaya Kumar Reddy. In the statement he has stated that he is working as an Accountant in M/s. Vijay Mining and Infra Corporation Private Limited, Hyderabad. He has further stated in his statement that after completion of his education, he worked as Supervisor in IBC Limited, Mangampet village in Kadapa District. Later in the year 2004, he joined M/s. Vijay Mining and Infra Corporation Private Limited, Hyderabad. On being asked, he has stated that the documents submitted to CBI shows the monthly production of iron ore excavated from Vyasanakere mines and stocked at Vyasanakere plot and Danapur plot. As per the said records, the total quantity of 12,69,214.79 Mt of iron ore was excavated for the period from 1.4.2009 to 15.8.2009.
10. Witness No.42-Sri. Dushyanth Reddy is the Director of M/s. Vijay Mining and Infra Corporation Private Limited, Hyderabad. In his statement, he has stated that he has been working for Sri. G. Janardhan Reddy since November 2003 in M/s. OMC and as requested by him, they 10 have deployed their machinery for excavation of iron ore from October 2009 on behalf of M/s. Associated Mining Company at the locations shown by the representatives of the firm. He has stated that his employees Sri. V. Shivaprasad (production manager) and others have worked in the mine areas stated to be of M/s. Veeyam Private Limited and the area adjacent to M/s. Lakshmi Narayana Mines and M/s. SVK Mines located near Vyasanakere, Hospet. On being asked, he has stated that in the area adjacent to the M/S. LMC, they have extracted about 10 lakh MTs of iron ore which was transported to two stock yards situated at Siddhapura side of mining area, which is known as LMC Siddhapura plot. In his further statement, he has also stated that on scrutiny of the documents, he has handed over the said documents to CBI on 6.2.2013 in connection with investigation of the case. He has also stated that as requested by Sri. Anand Singh who is the proprietor/partner of M/s. Vyshnavi Minerals, he has entered into an agreement with him for mining of iron ore and deployed their machinery in the areas mentioned in the statement. He has further stated that they started working 11 for his firm from May 2008 and continued up to November 2011. As mentioned in the documents, his company has extracted about 45 lakh MTs of iron ore from M/s. Vyshnavi Minerals and the details of the payments received by their company are also mentioned in the said documents. Anand Singh himself also deployed machinery for mining operation in the said area. But, he is not aware of the quantity of iron ore extracted by them.
11. Witness No.312 is one Sri. Pukhraj Nenival. He is the Deputy Controller of Mines, Indian Bureau of Mines, Industrial Suburb II Stage, Tumkur Road, Yeshwanthpura Bangalore. In his statement, Pukhraj Nenival has stated that M/s. SB Minerals has submitted annual returns for the financial years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 and monthly returns to the Regional Controller of Mines Office, Bangalore.
On going through the said returns, the following is observed with regard to production and dispatch of iron ore during the said period:
Production details in MT Lumps - 14,03,600 Fines - 26,72,500 12 Total - 40,76,100 Dispatches in MT - 39,80,922
12. Witness No.297-Sri. Gooty Zareef Adil is the proprietor of M/s. Amann Enterprises, Hospet. In his statement he has stated that the quantity of 12,966.12 MT of iron ore was sold to M/s. S.B. Logistics by M/s. Amann Enterprises vide invoice No.053 dated 29.5.2010 for Rs.3,88,01,114/- and amount of Rs.5.00 Crore was received on 19.6.2010 by M/s. Amann Enterprises from M/s. S.B. Logistics through RTGS from State Bank of India, College Road, Hospet. He has also stated that 12,966.12 MT quantity of iron ore sold to M/s. S.B. Logistics was loaded from SVK Plot situated at Vyasanakere village of M/s. S.B. Minerals and from CIPL plot of Sri. Mahendra Jain. In his further statement, dated 4.9.2013, Gooty Zareef Adil has deposed he has paid Rs.2.00 Crore in cash to Sri. M. Shivakumar Manager, M/s. Vyshnavi Minerals, Hospet. On many occasions, Shivakumar himself came to ING Vysya Bank for collection of cash amount. He paid the above said amount to Shivakumar on the instruction of late R. Anand of M/s. Star Minerals as the material was sold by M/s.13
Vyshnavi Minerals and the same was to be loaded from mine plot of M/s. S.B. Minerals at Vyasanakere village only after making payment in cash to Shivakumar of M/s. Vyshnavi Minerals. In the present case also, he did not receive any invoice from M. Shivakumar for the materials sold to him and loaded from M/s. S.B. Minerals, Vyasanakere plot. He has further stated that after receipt of cash amount handed over by him to Shivakumar of M/s. Vyshnavi Minerals, the iron ore quantity 3,947.48 MT was transported by M/s. S.B. Logistics Transporter Contractor, Hospet and M/s. B.K. Enterprises Bellary from M/s. S.B. Minerals, Vyasanakere plot to Belekeri Port during the period from 17.4.2010 to 24.4.2010. In his further statement, dated 14.12.2013, he has also stated that when the sale/purchase transaction took place, Sri. Shivakumar of M/s. Vyshnavi Minerals informed that the sale invoices will be given after completion of transportation of sale of above said iron ore quantity. However, M/s. Vyshnavi Minerals / M/s. S.B Minerals did not issue them sale invoices after completion of transaction as agreed even after repeated request made by him. 14
13. Witness No.298 one Sri. Ramesh Ramswami, is the Manager of M/s. Shakthi Priya Enterprises. In his statement, Ramesh Ramswami has stated that the iron ore quantity of 1,31,374.520 MTs sold to M/s. S.B. Logistics was purchased by M/s. Shakthi Priya Enterprises from Sudhakar Rao, Proprietor, M/s. Kiran Enterprises, Koppal Taluk and District. The total quantity of 1,31,374.520 MTs of iron ore sold to M/s. S.B. Logistics was loaded from stockyard of M/s. Kiran Enterprises (MRK Plot), situated at Sy. No.107 Bevinahalli village belonging to Sri. Sudhakar Rao. All the payments was made to Sudhakar Rao in cash towards purchase of the said material. The amount received is Rs.36,39,86,450/-. They had gone to Sri. Shivakumar in the office of M/s. Vyshnavi Minerals for about 30-35 times and handed over approximate amount of R.20-25 crores for the purchase of iron ore. They had gone to late Srinivas Singh, Partner of M/s. S.B Minerals, Vyasanakare at his residential premises, Hospet for about 15-20 times and handed over approximate amount of Rs.7.00 crores for the purchase of iron ore. After receipt of cash amount handed over by him to the above said persons, the iron ore quantity 15 1.31 lakh MT. was transported by M/s. Saptagiri Logistics from M/s. S.B. Minerals, Vyasanakare Mines plot to M/s. Kiran Enterprises stockyard situated at Bevinahalli village. The said quantity of iron ore was sold to M/s. S.B. Logistics by him and the same was transported from M/s. Kiran Enterprises stockyard to Belekeri port by M/s. S.B. Logistics transport company. The said quantity of iron i.e., 1,31,374.520 MT sold to M/s. S.B. Logistic was purchased by M/s. Shakthi Priya Enterprises from Sri. Shivakumar, Manager of M/s. Vyshnavi Minerals through Sudhakar Rao/Srinivas Singh/Anand Singh. When the sale/purchase transaction took place, Sri Shivakumar of M/s. Vyshnavi Minerals informed him that the sale invoices will be given after completion of transportation of the sale of above said quantity of iron ore. However, M/s. Vyshnavi Minerals / M/s. S.B. Minerals did not issue them sale invoices after completion of transportation as agreed even after repeated requests made by him.
14. Witness No.90 one Sri. T.V. Srinivasan, Assistant Conservator of Forest, in his statement has stated that in all 16 the stockyards, the iron ore used to bring and stored from various mines. The illegal transportation of iron ore to Belekeri port was rampant during the said period from V. Nagappa stockyard, Danapura stockyard, Swastik Nagaraj stockyard, Veeyem stockyard, LMC stockyard, SBM P.K. Halli stockyard and SVK Mine stockyard Vyasankare without any permits on zero basis. There was a common code "zero" for the transportation of iron ore without valid permits during the said period. The transportation of iron ore on zero basis from the stockyard was carried out by Sri. Alikhan, Swastik Nagaraj and K. Mahesh, close associates of Sri. Janardhana Reddy during the said period. He has further stated that he had also forwarded mine proposal of M/s. S.B. Minerals during his tenure as in-charge Deputy Conservator of Forests on the direction of Sri. Anand Singh who was Hospet MLA.
15. Witness No.206 one H.S. Sathyanarayana RFO, Tiptur Range gave his statement before the 17th ACMM Court AT Bangalore on 1.4.2013. So far as the present petitioner is concerned, he has stated one Anand Singh the 17 MLA who was also the owner of SVK Mines, his P.A. Srinivas and Joshi made a phone call to him and said that he should not check anything about those mines and about an illegal transportation and told him that it is all being sent to Janardhana Reddy and therefore, he should not question him.
16. Witness No.209 one Sri. S. Muthaiah, Conservator of Forest gave his statement before the 17th ACMM Court Bangalore wherein he has stated that in Hospet Range, there is M/s. S.B. Minerals owned by Anand Singh MLA and Tourism Minister. He has given transportation contract to Nagendra, MLA of Kudlugi. Nagendra has transported the iron ore without valid permit of mines and Geology and Forest Department and transported the 'zero' materials from Bellary to Karwar and Bellary to Mangalore and those two persons were personally liable for the transportation of iron ore without permits on the directions of Janardhana Reddy. The amount derived from this illegal transportation was shared between those three persons by giving 25% to Janardhana Reddy and the remaining 75% to Anand Singh 18 and Negendra. He has also stated that Anand Singh transported iron ores from the surrendered area of LMC without valid permits to Bellary to Karwar and Bellary to Mangalore.
17. Witness No.210 one Sri. Mahesh A. Patil, RFO (u/s) gave his statement before the 17th ACMM Court, Bangalore wherein he has also stated that one Anand singh MLA of Hospet used to pressurize him of MLC mines. He along with MLC mines owner and Janardhan Reddy did illegal mining in the surrendered areas.
18. I have perused the decision relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused No.10 in Sanjay Chandra's case, wherein their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the propositions as under:
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 19 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
- 2G Spectrum Scam case- Charge-sheet already filed - Telecom licences under Unified 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 20 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 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 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 21 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 to be denied to teach lesson to a person whose offence is yet to be proved -
Conditional bail, as a solution.
In para No.38 of the aforesaid judgment, The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:
" In State of U.P. V/s Amarmani Tripathi this court held as under: (SCC pp. 31 & 32, paras 18 & 22)
8. It is well settled that the matters to be considered in an application for bail are (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to be believed that the accused had committed the offence, (ii) nature and gravity of the charge; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing , if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) danger of apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being 22 thwarted by grant of bail (see Prahlad Singh Bhati V/s NCT, Delhi and Gurcharan Singh V/s State (Delhi Admn.)]. While a vague allegation that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses may not be ground to refuse bail, if the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or if there is material to show that he will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence, then bail will be refused. We may also refer to the following principles relating to grant or refusal of bail stated in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar V/s Rajesh Ranjan (SCC pp. 535-36, para 11) '11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The court granting bails should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind. It is also necessary for the court granting bail to consider 23 among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail, they are:
(a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence.
(b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant.
(c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in
support of the charge. (See Ram Govind
Upadhyay V/s Sudarshan Singh and Puran V/s Rambilas)'
22. While a detailed examination of the evidence is to be avoided while considering the question of bail, to ensure that there is no prejudging and no prejudice, a brief examination to be satisfied about the existence or otherwise of a prima facie case is necessary. "
19. In the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Crl. Appeal No.1685/2014 arising out of SLP (Criminal) 2814/2014 in the matter of Narendra G. Hittalamakki Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has passed the order to the following effect:
24
" Leave granted.
This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the order dated 18th December, 2013 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in Criminal Petition No.6344 of 2013. By the impugned order, the High Court refused to enlarge the appellant on bail.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the appellant is in custody for about one year and there is no likelihood of initiation of trial. The appellant is the main accused and he is wrongly implicated in the matter.
We have heard leaned counsel for the parties. Having regard to the fact that the appellant is in custody for about one year and there is no likelihood of initiation of trial in the near future, we allow the prayer, set aside the impugned order dated 18th December, 2013 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore and direct that the appellant- Narendra. G. Hittalamakki be enlarged on bail in connection with R.C. No.17(A)/2012- CBI/ACB/BLR dated 13.09.2013 subject to furnishing bail bonds for the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. The appeal is allowed. "25
20. I have further perused decision rendered in N. Vishwanathan Vs. State by Central Bureau of Investigation reported in MANU/KA/1743/2013 rendered by this Court Crl.P. No.4597/2013 and also the order dated 6.8.2014 passed by the 46th Additional City Civil and Special Judge in Spl. Case No.116/2012.
21. I have perused the decision relied upon the learned SPP for respondent-CBI in Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs. CBI reported in (2013)3 SCC (Cri) 552. In para Nos.34 and 36 of the said decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:
" 34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country.26
36. Taking note of all these facts and the huge magnitude of the case and also the request of CBI asking for further time for completion of the investigation in filing the charge-sheet(s), without expressing any opinion on the merits, we are of the opinion that the release of the appellant at this stage may hamper the investigation. However, period of 4 months from today. Thereafter, as observed in the earlier order dated 5-10-2012, the appellant is free to renew his prayer for bail before the trial court and if any such petition is filed, the trial court is free to consider the prayer for bail independently on its own merits without being influenced by dismissal of the present appeal. "
22. In Dipak Subhashchandra Mehta's case reported in (2012)4 SCC 134, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
" It is true that the present appellant along with others is charged with economic offences of huge magnitude. But the appellant is in custody from 31-3-2010, except the period of interim bail i.e. from 15-9-2011 to 30-11-2011, and there is no possibility of commencement of trial in the near future. Though the investigating agency has completed the investigation and submitted 27 the charge-sheet including additional charge- sheet, the fact remains that the necessary charges have not been framed, therefore, the presence of the appellant in custody may not be necessary for further investigation. In view of the same, considering the health condition as supported by the documents including the certificate of the Medical Officer, Central Jail Dispensary, the appellant is entitled to an order of bail pending trial on stringent conditions in order to safeguard the interest of CBI.
The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail, a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted, particularly, where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. The court granting bail has to consider, among other circumstances, the factors such as (a) the nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction and the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant; and
(c) prima facie satisfaction of the court in 28 support of the charge. In addition to the same, the court while considering a petition for grant of bail in a non-bailable offence, apart from the seriousness of the offence, likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and tampering with the prosecution witnesses, have to be noted. "
23. I have perused the other decisions relied upon by the learned SPP produced along with the list which are referred above.
24. It is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused No.10 that now the investigation of the case is completed and the charge sheet has been filed. There are 370 witnesses in the case and voluminous documents have been collected during investigation. The learned Senior Counsel has also contended that the matter may take long time to conclude the trial and the other accused persons have also been released on bail. Perusal of the decision in Sanjay Chandra's Case (supra), it is observed by their Lordships that each case however is to be decided on its own merits. Therefore, looking to this observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Court has to see as to what are the materials collected as 29 against the present petitioner and the other factors which are referred above as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Based on those materials and factors, the Court has to find out as to whether it is a case for grant of bail in favour of petitioner accused. I have made a reference to the statement of witnesses recorded by the investigating officer during investigation, the relevant portion of their statement is culled out in this order. Looking to the said statement of witnesses, it prima facie goes to show that there was illegal extraction of the iron ore and illegal transportation of the iron ore in excess of the quantity for which the permission was given. The material also goes to show that iron ore was sold without raising the invoices. The witnesses have already stated that the present petitioner has sold the iron ore stating that the invoices will be issued later and even then, no such invoices were issued. The statement of witnesses further makes it clear that the present petitioner who is the MLA has even threatened the concerned forest officers and pressurised them that he is transporting iron ore for and on behalf of accused No.1 and asked them not to check the vehicles carrying on the iron ore. So the statement of witnesses establishes that even there was pressure and threat by the present petitioner on 30 the forest officers for transporting the iron ore illegally. Therefore, it supports the contention of the respondent-CBI that even if the petitioner is released on bail, he is going to influences the witnesses and will tamper the witnesses. Therefore, looking to all these materials collected by the investigating officer during investigation, they prima facie establish involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offences and the materials also establish that there is an illegal extraction of the iron ore and illegal transportation of the iron ore without following the due procedures and without getting the required permits as per the law and thereby, there is a loss to the State exchequer in crores of rupees. In view of the discussions made above, I am of the opinion that the ground of parity is not made applicable to the petitioner and he is not entitled to be granted with bail.
Accordingly, the petition is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE Cs/-