Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

In this petition filed under Section 439 r/w Section 167 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner arraigned as accused No.5 in Special C.C.No.116/12 pending on the file of Special Court for CBI cases (CCH-47), Bangalore has sought for an order to enlarge him on bail.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief are as under:

The Central Empowered Committee in its report dated 21.9.2011 submitted to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.7366-67/2010 and connected matters, reported that illegalities have been committed by various persons in the matter of Mining Lease No.2434 related to M/s Associated Mining Company with regard to illegal grant of renewal of mining lease; the existing locations of the boundary pillars being completely different from the sanctioned lease sketch and quantity of iron ore shown to have been produced and dispatched from the mining lease being far in excess of the quantity that could have been physically produced and dispatched from the mining lease area. The said report also referred to various observations made in the report dated 27.7.2011 submitted by Karnataka Lokayukta. Based on the said report of the Central Empowered Committee as well as the report of the Karnataka Lokayukta, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order dated 23.9.2011 held that Court is prima facie satisfied that at the relevant time there existed linkages between the alleged illegal mining in Bellary Reserve Forest falling in District of Anantpur in Andhra Pradesh and the above mentioned illegalities in Bellary District of Karnataka and directed the CBI to register an FIR and to investigate into the matter. Pursuant to the such direction, the CBI/ACB, Bangalore registered case in R.C.18(A)/2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 379, 411, 427, 447, 468, 471, 477-A OF IPC; under Section13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; under Section 26 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and under Section 21 r/w Section 4(1), 4(1) (A) & Section 23 of MMDR Act, 1957 against accused No.1-G.Janardhana Reddy and others.

Subsequently, during the course of investigation, the offences punishable under Section 409 of IPC was also included in to the case.

3. During the course of investigation of the case, the complicity of this petitioner in the Commission of offence was revealed. Therefore, he was arraigned as accused No.21. Later, on 02.03.12, this petitioner appeared before the jurisdictional Court voluntarily and submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the Court. Therefore, on that day he was taken to custody. On 05.03.12 at the request of CBI/ACB, Bangalore, this petitioner was given to police custody up to 12.3.2012 and extended up to 16.3.12, on which date he was remanded to judicial custody. Thereafter, the petitioner along with other accused persons filed application for grant of bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The said application was heard and orders thereon were pronounced on 30.5.2012 rejecting the said application. On the same day, the Investigating Officer filed charge sheet arraigning this petitioner as accused No.5 for the aforesaid offences. After the rejection of the bail application on 30.5.2012, the petitioner approached this Court in Crl.P.No.3053/12 inter alia contending that though the charge sheet purported to have been filed on 30.5.2012 there is no endorsement in the order sheet about the filing of the charge sheet by the Investigating Officer and as could be seen from the order sheet maintained by the jurisdictional Court, cognizance of the offences is shown to have been taken on 29.06.12, therefore, it is deemed that the charge sheet has been filed beyond the period of 90 days and since the petitioner had acquired an indefeasible right to be released on bail upon expiry of 90 days, he is entitled to be released on bail. It was also contended that assuming that the charge sheet has been filed on 30.5.2012, since the cognizance of the offences alleged were not taken immediately and the period of 90 days had expired, by 30.05.2012,the jurisdictional Court had no power to remand the petitionerunder Section 167 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure after the expiry of 90 days and since there was no remand under any other provision or under Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the remand of the accused from 31.05.2012 up to the date on which the cognizance was taken, was illegal and without authority of law and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail. However, this Court by order dated 24.7.2012, in the light of the facts that in the bail application filed before the Trial Court by the petitioner no such ground concerning the right of bail under Section 167(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure had been taken, was of the view that the Court cannot at that stage consider the arguments put forth on behalf of the petitioner and since the Trial Court had dismissed the application mainly on the ground of charge sheet having not been filed, the petitioner was given liberty to approach the trial Court for grant of delay in the light of the charge sheet subsequently filed and liberty was also given to the petitioner to urge the contentions concerning detention being illegal beyond 30.5.2012 and the Trial Court was directed to consider such application on merits and in accordance with law. With the said observation, the petition came to be disposed of. After the disposal of Crl.P.No.3053/12, the petitioner along with accused Nos.1 and 7 filed application for grant of bail both under Section 167 (2) and Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The Trial Court by order dated 25.9.12 dismissed the application filed by this petitioner as also the applications of accused Nos.1 and 7. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court with this petition.