Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that when the CBI wanted the petitioner to give his voice specimen, the petitioner readily gave his voice specimen, for comparison with that of the voice recorded in the purported audio CD.

The learned counsel for the petitioner refuted the genuineness and authenticity of the conversation in the audio CD and submitted that no evidentiary value can be attached to the audio CD and thereby the Forensic Voice Examination Report and the transcription of the CD which have been submitted by the learned counsel for the CBI should not be given any importance at all while adjudicating this bail application.

Considering the rival submissions, it is found that the learned counsel for the CBI on the other hand submitted that the question of admissibility or otherwise of the CD, Forensic Voice Examination Report and transcription of the CD are not to be assessed at this stage while considering the application for anticipatory bail particularly when the investigation is under progress.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed that the specimen voice of the petitioner was taken for comparison by the CBI. It is mentioned in the note of submission filed by the petitioner that when the CBI wanted the petitioner to give his voice specimen, the petitioner readily gave his voice specimen for comparison with that of the voice recorded in the purported audio CD. There is also no dispute that the Forensic Voice Examination Report of the Sr. Scientific Officer of Central Forensic Science Laboratory, CBI, New Delhi is admissible under section 293 Cr.P.C. Whether the CD that was sent for examination by the Superintendent of Police, CBI, Bhubaneswar to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory fulfills the guidelines expounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Anvar P.V. -v- P.K. Basheer (supra) and Gujarat High Court in State of Gujarat -v- Shailndra Kamalkishore Pande (supra) and whether it is admissible or not and the effect of such evidence are all matters to be considered at the stage of trial by the trial Court and the trial Court will definitely keep in mind the ratio laid down in those decisions and other decisions on that point while appreciating the electronic record documentary evidence. At the time of consideration of the bail application, it is not at all necessary to ask the prosecution (CBI) to first satisfy the fulfillment of all the criteria laid down in case of Anvar P.V.-v-P.K. Basheer (supra) before taking into account the Forensic Voice Examination Report as well as transcription of the CD.

On perusal of the transcription of the CD, it is noticed that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner only asked the main accused Pradeep Kumar Sethy to do something for "Banki Mahostav" is not correct. It contains something more which also establishes prima facie close link between the petitioner and the main accused and also Artha Tatwa. The details of the transcription cannot be discussed at this stage since the investigation is under progress.

The larger interest of public and State demand that in economic offences, the discretion to grant anticipatory bail under section 438 Cr.P.C should be exercised with utmost care and caution in as much as discretionary relief of anticipatory bail in such cases may hamper the proper and effective investigation. Demand of individual liberty has to be matched with larger interest of public and State.

17. The materials so far collected by the CBI which were placed by the learned counsel for the CBI either during argument or by producing documents in sealed covers clearly raises the "pointing finger of accusation against the petitioner". The charges in this case are very serious and relates to commission of economic offences. Accused persons in this case have taken advantage of the depositors' quest to make quick and easy money and ultimately deprived them of their hard-earned money. The interrogation report of the main accused, the Forensic Voice Examination Report, the transcription of CD, the statement of the Co-operative Society Registering authority as well as the seizure of 153 sheets of documents of Artha Tatwa from the bed room of the official quarters of the petitioner at Bhubaneswar prima facie establishes link of the petitioner in the crime. Without entering into a detailed examination of evidence at this stage but on a brief examination of the materials, I find prima facie case is available against the petitioner. The "money trailing" has not yet been traced by the CBI to the fullest extent. The "larger conspiracy angle" is yet to be unearthed. In such a situation, if the petitioner who is a political and influential person is released on anticipatory bail then there cannot be any effective interrogation and the petitioner being well ensconced with a favourable order of pre-arrest bail is likely to conceal many useful informations and materials as apprehended by the CBI. The considerations which should weigh with the Court while dealing with a request for anticipatory bail need not be the same as an application to release on bail after arrest. The apprehension expressed by the CBI that if anticipatory bail order is granted in favour of the petitioner, it would create an obstacle for finding out the "money trail" and "larger conspiracy angle" appears to be quite reasonable particularly considering the high position of the petitioner.