Delhi High Court
Cbi vs Purshottam Dev Arya on 25 September, 2012
Author: P.K.Bhasin
Bench: P.K.Bhasin
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Crl. M.C. No. 1536/2012
+ Date of Decision: 25th September, 2012
# CBI ....Petitioner
! Through: Mr. Dayan Krishnan, ASC & Spl.
P.P. for CBI with Mr. Gautam
Narayan, Advocate
Versus
$ Purshottam Dev Arya
....Respondent
Through:Mr. Jatinder Sarin & Mr. Ravi
Nayak, Advocates.
CORAM:
* HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.BHASIN
ORDER
P.K.BHASIN, J:
This petition under Section 482 read with Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 has been filed by the Central Bureau Crl.M.C. 1536/2012 Page 1 of 6 of Investigation(CBI) for cancellation of bail granted to the respondent- accused by the Special Judge in C.C. No. 22/2011 and Supp.C.C. No. 24/2011 vide orders dated 23rd January, 2012 and 16th February, 2012 respectively.
The respondent-accused was charge-sheeted along with many other persons, including some public servants, by the CBI for their involvement in a scam which was planned when the recently concluded Commonwealth Games were going to be organised in the country. The respondent-accused and his other co-accused were a part of the conspiracy to defraud the public exchequesr of almost 100 crores of rupees and they were charge-sheeted for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 420/467/468/471/120-B IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988.
Corruption Case No. 22/2011 was registered in the Court of Special Judge constituted under the Prevention of Corruption Act in respect of RC No. DAI-2010-A-0044 which was registered and investigated by the CBI. To ensure the presence of the respondent- accused before the Court proceedings under Sections 82/83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had to be initiated and those proceedings resulted into the attachment of his properties. It appears on some occasion the respondent-accused had sought exemption from personal appearance in Court but the same was not granted by the Special Judge. The respondent-accused had sought to obtain anticipatory bail also but failed to get that relief from this Court. He appears to have surrendered himself after the rejection of his anticipatory bail application on
02.08.2011 and thereafter he remained in jail for some months. In the Crl.M.C. 1536/2012 Page 2 of 6 meanwhile, the CBI had submitted a supplementary charge-sheet in the Court of the Special Judge against the respondent-accused and one more accused for the commission of the offence punishable under Section 174- A IPC and the same was registered as Corruption Case No.24/2011 The respondent-accused moved separate bail applications before the Special Judge in the main case as also in the supplementary case under Section 174-A IPC and in the main case he claimed bail on parity with all other individual accused persons who had already been released on bail in the main case. In the case under Section 174-A IPC he sought bail on merits.
Vide order dated 23rd January, 2012 the learned Special Judge granted bail to the respondent-accused in the main case arising out of RC No.44/2010. That order reads as under:-
"1. First regular bail application has been moved on behalf of accused A.K. Madan. In the bail applications although many grounds of bail on merit have been mentioned but at the time of arguments Ld. Counsel for accused A.K. Madan had confined his submissions to the ground of parity and has submitted that the main accused in the case have been already granted bail. Accused No.1 & 2 Suresh Kalmadi and V.K. Verma were granted bail by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 19.1.2012 and accused no. 3 to 7 have been granted bail by this Court on 21.1.2012 and 24.1.2012. Hence he has prayed for bail on the ground of parity.
2. On the other hand Ld. Sr. PP for CBI vehemently opposed the bail.
3. After hearing both the sides, without going into the merits of the case, I am inclined to grant bail to accused A.K. Madan on the ground of parity as other seven accused persons are already on bail.................................................."Crl.M.C. 1536/2012 Page 3 of 6
Then vide order dated 16th February, 2012 the learned Special Judge granted bail to the respondent- accused in the case under Section 174-A IPC also.
The CBI has now approached this Court for cancellation of the bail granted to the respondent-accused by the Special Judge in the above referred two cases vide orders dated 253rd January, 2012 and 16th February, 2012. Cancellation of the bail given to respondent-accused is being sought on the ground that one co-accused A.K. Reddy was still in jail in the main case when the respondent-accused was granted bail on parity with other co-accused persons who had already been granted bail but A.K.Reddy, who had also sought bail on parity, was denied bail by the Special Judge since he was found to have already influenced one prosecution witness.
It was contended by Mr. Dayan Krishnan, the learned counsel for CBI that the respondent-accused alongwith A.K.Reddy and one more co- accused, all three of whom are private persons, had joined hands in receiving payments through one Company(accused no.11) which had been illegally granted some contract for supply of some sports equipments by the public servants involved in the scam causing huge loss to the public exchequer. Therefore, Mr. Dayan Krishnan submitted, the respondent-accused also should have been denied bail as was denied to A.K.Reddy.
This application was opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent-accused on the ground that there could not be any parity with an accused who had been denied bail and that too for a special Crl.M.C. 1536/2012 Page 4 of 6 reason that he had influenced some witness during the trial and that was not the allegation against the respondent-accused and for the fault of A.K.Reddy the respondent-accused could not be punished by the Special Judge by denying him also the relief of bail which had already been granted to the main accused persons who were public servants.
After hearing arguments of the learned counsel for the parties the case was reserved for orders and when the case was still reserved for orders this Court was informed by the counsel for the petitioner on mentioning that the co-accused A.K. Reddy had also been granted bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 16th August, 2012 and a copy of that order was shown to me. This fact was admitted by Shri Dayan Krishnan, learned counsel for CBI, who had himself appeared in the bail matter of A.K. Reddy before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made at the bar from both the sides.
There is no doubt that against the respondent-accused the Special Judge had to resort to proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it was only after his properties were ordered to be attached that he had surfaced and had surrendered himself after the rejection of his anticipatory bail application by this Court. However, the fact remains that after he had surrendered himself he remained in jail for some months and after his release from jail nothing was reported against him and even the co-accused A.K. Reddy has also now been granted bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Bail to A.K.Reddy has also been granted on the ground of parity since all the accused involved in the main case Crl.M.C. 1536/2012 Page 5 of 6 were out on bail. So, this Court does not consider it to be a fit case for cancellation of bail granted to the respondent-accused vide orders dated 23.01.2012 and 16.02.2012 by the learned Special Judge.
This application of the CBI for cancelling the bail granted to the respondent-accused is, therefore, liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.
P.K. BHASIN,J September 25, 2012 Crl.M.C. 1536/2012 Page 6 of 6