Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2013 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (9) TMI 1271 - HC - Indian LawsSeeking for regular bail - Committed offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act - Indulging in conspiracy to mobilize bribe money u/s-120B IPC - Rot of moral depravity is ravaging the very fabric of the nation - Persons of high positions & authority indulged in Corruption - Intending to secure plum post - Working in tandem to mobilize illegal gratification - Influential persons can tamper with evidence, influence the witnesses - mere ipse dixit - HELD THAT:- It is required to maintain an even handed approach while exercising its judicial discretion where the accused have committed an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the accused approaches the Court for relief against deprivation of their personal liberty. the charge is that of a conspiracy of working in tandem to mobilize illegal gratification to secure a plum post in exchange of pecuniary advantage that was agreed to be extended to another person so that official favours extended by one person to another. The maximum punishment for the said offence is imprisonment that may extend to five years. The persons holding high positions/status in the society acts as a safeguard and guarantee for them that they would stand their trial and not attempt to flee from the process of law. At the end of the day, the guiding factor for enlarging an accused on bail is to secure his presence to take the judgment and serve the sentence if indicted by the court. The vocation, family background, antecedents and social circumstances of the petitioners are not found to be unfavourable and they show that the petitioners have roots in the society and thus will never evade the legal process or fail to turn up during the trial. The evidences gathered by the investigating agency are telephonic conversation, i.e., electronic evidence and recovery of cash, apart from other circumstantial evidence, thus Court stated that the likelihood of the persons attempting to erase the evidence appears to be quite remote. In the present case, not only is the investigation complete, the charge-sheet has also been filed and the recordings of the telephonic conversation that are in the custody of the prosecution will be properly analyzed. Deciding the Bail Applications - HELD THAT:- The Court must not overlook while deciding the bail applications is the likelihood of delay in the conclusion of the trial. The Supreme Court has often taken a view that when there is delay in the trial, bail should ordinarily be granted to the accused but on case to case basis. The decision in the case of DIPAK SHUBHASH CHANDRA MEHTA VERSUS CBI. [2013 (6) TMI 105 - SUPREME COURT] and BABBA ALIAS SHANKAR RAGHUMAN ROHIDA VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA. [2005 (4) TMI 638 - SUPREME COURT] followed. Resultantly, the persons were enlarged on bail upon furnishing a personal bond in the sum of ₹ 5 lacs each, with two sureties each of the like amount, subject to the following conditions: (i) The persons shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any authority. (ii) The petitioners shall not tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses or make any attempt to thwart the trial of the case. (iii) The petitioners shall surrender their passports. (iv) The petitioners shall remain present before the trial court on the dates fixed before it unless they have been exempted by the Special Judge, CBI with prior permission. If any of the petitioners violate any of the conditions of bail, then the CBI shall be at liberty to approach the Court for seeking cancellation of the bail order. The petitions were disposed of.
|