Asim Niranjan Chakraborty vs State Of Gujarat on 4 April, 2014

[Cites 14, Cited by 1]

Gujarat High Court

Asim Niranjan Chakraborty vs State Of Gujarat on 4 April, 2014

Bench: Abhilasha Kumari

         R/CR.MA/4281/2014                                        JUDGMENT




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

    CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL ) NO. 4281 of 2014



FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI
===========================================================
1   Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to   No
    see the judgment ?

2    To be referred to the Reporter or not ?                                       No

3    Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of                          No
     the judgment ?

4    Whether this case involves a substantial question of                          No
     law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of
     India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?

5    Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?                           No

================================================================
                ASIM NIRANJAN CHAKRABORTY .... Applicant(s)
                                Versus
                    STATE OF GUJARAT .... Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR PM THAKKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR NAVIN K PAHWA, ADVOCATE for the Applicant
MR HARDIK SONI, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent
================================================================

          CORAM: HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA
                 KUMARI

                                Date : 04/04/2014


                               ORAL JUDGMENT

1. This application under Section 438 of the Code Page 1 of 16 R/CR.MA/4281/2014 JUDGMENT of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been preferred by the applicant for the grant of anticipatory bail in connection with FIR, being C.R.No.I 3/2010, registered with CID Crime, Rajkot Zone Police Station, for offences punishable under Sections 7, 11, 13(1)(b) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. The brief factual background of the case is that initially, an FIR, being C.R. No.I9/2010, came to be registered with CID Crime, Rajkot Zone Police Station, against the prime accused (accused No.1) and the applicant for offences punishable under Sections 217, 409, 465, 467, 468, 471, 476 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. In that FIR, the case of the prosecution is that the applicant herein is serving as a Vice President in a Multinational Public Limited Company known as "Welspun Corporation Limited" (hereinafter referred to as "the Company"), which has its registered office at Village Varshamedi, Taluka: Anjar, District:

Kutchh. The Company approached the prime accused for allotment of certain parcels of land and the Page 2 of 16 R/CR.MA/4281/2014 JUDGMENT said prime accused, abusing his position and power as Collector and with a sole motive of favouring the Company, made allotments of lands to the extent of 1,74,014 square meters, in favour of the Company in violation of the Government Resolution dated 06.06.2003, which empowers the Collector to allot only upto 20,000 square meters of land, and that too, at a very meagre rate.

3. According to the prosecution, while the process of allotment of land was going on, accused No.1, the prime accused in that case, who was a Government servant, abused his position as such with the sole motive to favour the Company and derive monetary gain for himself. The applicant herein was made coaccused in that FIR on the ground that accused No.1 had obtained a mobile simcard bearing No.9925199799 in the name of the present applicant and the bill for the said mobile was being paid by the Company.

4. The applicant herein was granted anticipatory bail in connection with the first FIR, being Page 3 of 16 R/CR.MA/4281/2014 JUDGMENT C.R. No.I9/2010, registered with CID Crime, Rajkot Zone Police Station, by judgment dated 12.09.2011, passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.9628 of 2011. The accused No.1 in that FIR was granted regular bail.

5. Coming to the present proceedings, which are for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with FIR, being C.R.No.I3/2010, registered with CID Crime, Rajkot Zone Police Station, for offences punishable under Sections 7, 11, 13(1)(b) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the case of the prosecution is that in the year 2004, the accused No.1 had obtained a mobile simcard No.9925199799 in the name of the present applicant, who is the Vice President of the Company. This mobile was recovered from the possession of accused No.1 and, according to the prosecution, the bill amount for the mobile was being paid by the Company. Thus, it is the case of the prosecution that for the period between 2004 upto 2009, when this mobile was being used by accused No.1, a total aggregate amount of Page 4 of 16 R/CR.MA/4281/2014 JUDGMENT Rs.2,24,036/ was paid by the Company towards the bill. The prime accused in that case, as stated above, was a Government servant.

6. Mr.P.M.Thakkar, learned Senior Advocate with Mr.Navin Pahwa, learned advocate for the applicant, has submitted that:

(a) The applicant has not been named in the FIR and is sought to be falsely implicated in the crime. There is no material to indicate the involvement of the applicant with the crime in question. In any case, no case is made out against the applicant, therefore, it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.

(b) The main accused has been granted anticipatory bail vide judgment and order dated 03.02.2012, passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.2003 of 2011, therefore, on the ground of parity as well, the applicant is entitled for the grant of anticipatory bail.

(c) Both the FIRs have been filed on the Page 5 of 16 R/CR.MA/4281/2014 JUDGMENT same grounds and the allegations are identical.

(d) The applicant is an employee of the Company and is not a Government servant. He cannot be held to be vicariously liable for the alleged offences purported to have been committed by the Company. No role has been attributed to the applicant in the entire FIR. Therefore, as per the settled law, reiterated by the Supreme Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Others - (2011)1 SCC 694, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.

(e) The applicant is wellrooted in the society and is holding a senior position in the Company. There is no likelihood of the applicant fleeing from justice. The applicant has already cooperated with the investigating agency and undertakes to do so in the future, as well.

7. Opposing the prayer for anticipatory bail, Mr.Hardik Soni, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has made the following submissions: Page 6 of 16

 R/CR.MA/4281/2014                              JUDGMENT



(i)            The   custodial   interrogation   of   the

applicant is necessary, as it is only after doing so will the information come to light whether other Government servants were involved in the crime, or not.

(ii) The applicant has, by communication dated 01.02.2010, addressed to the CID, stated that simcard No.9925199799, was procured by the Company in his name in October 2004, and that accused No.1 was using this mobile connection during the period October 2004 to November 2009. It is also stated that the bills were paid by the Company. This clearly shows the complicity of the applicant in the crime. Therefore, the prayer made by the applicant may not be granted.

(iii) The investigating agency has recorded a statement of the Accounts Officer of the Company to the effect that the bills for the mobile connection in question were paid by the Company.

(iv) The verification of the above aspect from the Telecom Company in question also reveals that the Company has footed the bills Page 7 of 16 R/CR.MA/4281/2014 JUDGMENT for use of said mobile connection during the period in question.

On the above grounds, it is prayed that the application be rejected.

8. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and having gone through the relevant record, the following aspects arise for the consideration of the Court:

8.1 The alleged offence is stated to have been committed in the year 2004.

8.2 The applicant has not been named in the FIR, but is sought to be implicated on the ground that the mobile No.9925199799, which was allotted to him by the Company, was being used by the prime accused in the case and that the bills for the usage of this mobile during the relevant period were footed by the Company. 8.3 There are two FIRs and both are on the same grounds and the allegations are identical.

9. It may be noted that the applicant is an Page 8 of 16 R/CR.MA/4281/2014 JUDGMENT employee of the Company and is not a Government servant. The second FIR in connection of which anticipatory bail is sought by the applicant, has been registered under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is apparent from the document dated 01.02.2010, addressed by the applicant to the CID, submitted for perusal of the Court by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, that the applicant has been cooperating in the investigation, as the said document is in the form of replies to the inquiries made by the CID from the applicant.

10. Insofar as the applicant is concerned, these are the only allegations against him which appear to have been already investigated by the prosecuting agency.

11. While granting anticipatory bail, the Supreme Court, in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Others (supra), has laid down certain guidelines that ought to be kept in mind by a Court while granting anticipatory Page 9 of 16 R/CR.MA/4281/2014 JUDGMENT bail. The relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:

"112. The following factors and parameters can be taken into consideration while dealing with the anticipatory bail:

(i) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made;

(ii) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence;

(iii) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice;

(iv) The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or the other offences;

(v) Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her;

(vi) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people;

Page 10 of 16

 R/CR.MA/4281/2014                               JUDGMENT




      (vii)         The courts must evaluate the entire

available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which accused is implicated with the help of sections 34 and 149 of the Penal Code, 1860 the court should consider with even greater care and caution because overimplication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern;

(viii) While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors, namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused;

(ix) The court to consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant;

(x) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail.

Page 11 of 16

R/CR.MA/4281/2014 JUDGMENT

113. Arrest should be the last option and it should be restricted to those exceptional cases where arresting the accused is imperative in the facts and circumstances of that case. The court must carefully examine the entire available record and particularly the allegations which have been directly attributed to the accused and these allegations are corroborated by other material and circumstances on record.

114. These are some of the factors which should be taken into consideration while deciding the anticipatory bail applications.

These factors are by no means exhaustive but they are only illustrative in nature because it is difficult to clearly visualize all situations and circumstances in which a person may pray for anticipatory bail. If a wise discretion is exercised by the Judge concerned, after consideration of entire material on record then most of the grievances in favour of grant of or refusal of bail will be taken care of. The legislature in its wisdom has entrusted the power to exercise this jurisdiction only to the Judges of the superior courts. In consonance with the legislative intention we should accept the fact that the discretion would be properly exercised. In any event, Page 12 of 16 R/CR.MA/4281/2014 JUDGMENT the option of approaching the superior court against the Court of Session or the High Court is always available.

... ... ...

116. Personal liberty is a very precious fundamental right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative according to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case."

12. Keeping the above principles of law in mind, this Court finds that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and there is no likelihood that he would flee from justice. The applicant has been cooperating with the investigating agency in the past and is ready to do so in the future, as well.

13. The applicant is not a Government servant, therefore, it remains to be seen how far the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, would be applicable to him.

14. Taking the above factors into consideration, in the view of this Court, the present is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Page 13 of 16

R/CR.MA/4281/2014 JUDGMENT

15. The application is, therefore, allowed. In the event of the arrest of the applicant, in connection with FIR, being C.R.No.I3/2010, registered with CID Crime, Rajkot Zone Police Station, for offences punishable under Sections 7, 11, 13(1)(b) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/ (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety of the like amount, on the following conditions: [A] The applicant shall join the investigation and cooperate with the investigating agency by making himself available for interrogation as and when called. [B] The applicant shall not influence the witnesses or hamper the investigation in any manner, either directly or indirectly. [C] The applicant shall, at the time of execution of bond, furnish his address to the Investigating Officer and the Court concerned and shall not change his residence till the end Page 14 of 16 R/CR.MA/4281/2014 JUDGMENT of the Trial, except with the permission of the Trial Court.

[D] The applicant shall not leave India without the prior permission of the Trial Court.

16. Breach of any of the above conditions shall give rise to a cause of action by the prosecuting agency to approach the Court for cancellation of bail.

17. It would be open for the Investigating Agency to apply to the competent Magistrate for police remand of the applicant. The applicant shall remain present before the learned Magistrate on the first date of hearing of such application and on all subsequent occasions, as may be directed by the learned Magistrate. This would be sufficient to treat the accused in the judicial custody for the purpose of entertaining application of the prosecution for police remand. This is, however, without prejudice to the right of the applicant to seek stay against an order of remand, if ultimately granted, and the power of the learned Magistrate to consider Page 15 of 16 R/CR.MA/4281/2014 JUDGMENT such a request in accordance with law. It is clarified that the applicant, even if remanded to the police custody upon completion of such period of police remand, shall be set free immediately, subject to other conditions of this anticipatory bail order.

18. It may be clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

19. Rule is made absolute. Direct Service is permitted.

(SMT. ABHILASHA KUMARI, J.) sunil Page 16 of 16

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Gujarat High Court