Jharkhand High Court
Gopi Krishna Nathani vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Cbi on 28 August, 2015
Author: H. C. Mishra
Bench: H. C. Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B. A. No. 6381 of 2015
Gopi Krishna Nathani ..... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through CBI ..... ... Opposite Party
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate
For the CBI : Mr. Kailash Prasad Deo, Advocate
--------
3/ 28.08.2015Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the Prosecution.
The petitioner has been made accused for the offence under Sections 120-B, 409 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, in connection with RC 221/2011/E/0002/New Delhi.
The case relates to fraudulent transfer of Rs. 12 Crores 50 Lakhs through RTGS from State Bank of India. The FIR shows that Rs. 12 Crores was fraudulently credited in the account of M/s Maharani Automobiles, Ratu Road, Ranchi, maintained with HDFC Bank, Ranchi, whereas the amount of Rs. 50 Lakhs was fraudulently credited into an account of M/s Shiv Shakti Traders, Bhagwanpur, Muzaffarpur, maintained with Syndicate Bank, Bhagwanpur Branch, Muzaffarpur.
Bail applications of this petitioner were earlier rejected twice on merits, in view of the fact that it had transpired from the investigation made by the CBI, that the petitioner had accompanied the co-accused Rajeev Ranjan and the amount of Rs. 50 Lakhs was handed over to both of them, after withdrawal from Syndicate Bank, Bhagwanpur Branch, Muzaffarpur, out of which, the petitioner got his share of Rs. 4 Lakhs.
After rejection his prayer for bail by this Court, the petitioner had moved before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in S.L.A (Cr.) No. 4762 of 2013, which was dismissed by order dated 17.10.2013, giving the liberty to the petitioner to renew his prayer before the Trial Court, if the trial was not concluded within a period of nine months, subject to the petitioner co-operating in the trial. Thereafter, the petitioner filed his bail application, which was again rejected up to this Court, and the petitioner had again moved before the Hon'ble Apex Court, in S.L.A. (Cr) No. 9471 of 2009, which was disposed of by order dated 16.1.2015, in which, again some directions were given by the Apex Court, giving the liberty to -2- the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail after four months and the Trial Court was directed to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the evidence, which might have been adduced before it.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has renewed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 29.9.2012 itself, and in similar circumstance, the co-accused, Rajeev Ranjan, whom the petitioner had accompanied at the time of withdrawal of Rs. 50 Lakhs, and who had also received Rs. 10 Lakhs as his share of the crime, but had returned the same, has been granted bail by order dated 8.4.2015 in B.A. No. 9167 of 2014. Learned counsel for the petitioner has accordingly, prayed for bail.
Learned counsel for the CBI, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer for bail submitting that the trial is going on in the Court below, in which, 29 witnesses out of 75 have been examined.
In the facts of this case and taking into consideration the fact that out of 75 witnesses only 29 witnesses have been examined so far, as also taking into consideration the period of custody of the petitioner, which is now approaching three years, as well as the allegation against him that he had received Rs. 4 Lakhs, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner, Gopi Krishna Nathani, on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner, named above, is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty-five thousand), with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate-cum-Special Magistrate, CBI, Ranchi, in connection with R.C. 221/2011/E/0002/New Delhi.
It is made clear that the petitioner shall cooperate in the trial of the case and shall keep himself aloof from the witnesses during the trial of the case. If it is found that the petitioner in any manner is trying to influence any witness, or that the petitioner is hindering the progress of trial in any manner, the CBI shall be free to move the Court concerned for cancellation of bail of the petitioner.
( H. C. Mishra, J.) R.Kr.