9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (1) TMI 1291 - HC - Indian LawsSeeking grant of bail u/s 439 CrPC - Offence punishable u/s 120B IPC and Section 7 8 12 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 - discriminatory treatment of the petitioner qua the other co- accused - HELD THAT - No doubt the petitioner was arrested on 23rd November 2009 immediately after the other co-accused Manoj had delivered a sum of Rs. 7, 00, 000/- and the consequent recovery of Rs. 55 lakhs which included prima facie this amount shows that the petitioner had been ostensibly misusing his official position in amassing huge cash/wealth for which he has not been able to give any plausible explanation weighs heavily against him. This view further gets fortified by the huge cash recovery of Rs. 1, 21, 23, 800/- or so from Chennai but then this ground in itself cannot be ground to deny the bail because then we will be punishing the accused even before he has been found guilty. In the present case the investigating agency has not adopted a just and fair approach in treating all the accused persons on a even pedestal while as the petitioner has been arrested on 23.11.2009 yet no action has been taken against the third co-accused Ankur Chawla despite the fact that he is specifically named in the FIR and where in view of the Court prima facie there is sufficient evidence to show that he was also a part of the conspiracy not only to commit the offence but also abettor of the offence. Beyond this the Court does not want to observe anything and leave the things to the wisdom of the investigating agency therefore Court takes this also a valid consideration to exercise discretion for grant of bail to the present petitioner. Merely because the petitioner s earlier of criminal misconduct of misusing of his position and amassing a huge cash for which he is not able to give any reasonable explanation till date has gone un-noticed is not in itself a ground for release of bail. Similarly the vigilance or the IB reports also do not help him in any manner. The alleged non-compliance of Section 6A also does not help the petitioner because I agree with the contention of the learned Counsel for the CBI that the offence of corruption may so sudden that in a given case it may defeat the ends of justice if one has to obtain the sanction for registration of the offence. There are two more considerations which weigh with the Court for enlarging the petitioner on bail. These are firstly that the petitioner s remand was obtained for seven days for taking him to Chennai but he was never taken there after he was remanded to judicial custody. The CBI never sought any permission to interrogate him therefore the continued incarceration of the petitioner in my view is not going to serve any purpose except to deny the benefit of bail to him by way of punishment. Secondly the petitioner is admittedly patient who has undergone bypass surgery. Although no grievance has been raised by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner regarding the non availability of medical aid or medical checkup but still the medical status of the petitioner which has been placed on record is certainly also a valid consideration that he had undergone a coronary bypass surgery only in 2007. This in my view is also a ground to be taken into account. Thus I feel that this is a fit case where the petitioner who is in custody since 23.11.2009 should be released on bail on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50, 000/- with two sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge.
Issues Involved
1. Validity of bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 2. Allegations and evidence against the petitioner. 3. Health condition of the petitioner. 4. Discriminatory treatment by the investigating agency. 5. Applicability of Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act. Detailed Analysis 1. Validity of Bail Application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The petitioner filed a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for offences under Section 120B IPC and Sections 7, 8, 12, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The court considered whether the petitioner, who had been in custody since 23rd November 2009, should be granted bail. It was noted that the petitioner had been remanded to police custody for seven days but was not subjected to further police remand, indicating no need for further custodial interrogation. 2. Allegations and Evidence Against the Petitioner The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, a Member of the Company Law Board, demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs. 7,00,000/- from Manoj Kumar Banthia, who in turn demanded Rs. 10,00,000/- from Ankur Chawla. A raid on the petitioner's residence resulted in the recovery of Rs. 55,00,000/- in cash, and further recovery of Rs. 1,21,23,800/- from lockers in Chennai. The petitioner argued that the maximum punishment for the alleged offences was five to seven years, and he had already been in custody for more than 51 days. The court acknowledged the gravity of the offence but emphasized that bail should not be denied as a form of punishment. 3. Health Condition of the Petitioner The petitioner's counsel highlighted his health condition, stating that he had undergone bypass surgery and required regular medical checkups. The court considered this as a valid factor for granting bail, noting that the petitioner had undergone coronary bypass surgery in 2007 and required ongoing medical attention. 4. Discriminatory Treatment by the Investigating Agency The petitioner alleged discriminatory treatment by the CBI, claiming that co-accused Ankur Chawla, named in the FIR, had not been arrested. The court criticized the CBI for not taking action against Chawla despite prima facie evidence of his involvement. The court emphasized that all persons must be dealt with equally under the rule of law and found the CBI's approach discriminatory, which was a valid consideration for granting bail. 5. Applicability of Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act The petitioner argued that under Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, a sanction was required before registering an FIR against him, as he held a rank equivalent to Joint Secretary or above. The court dismissed this argument, agreeing with the CBI that obtaining such a sanction could defeat the ends of justice in cases of sudden corruption offences. Conclusion The court granted bail to the petitioner, considering the totality of circumstances, including the discriminatory treatment by the CBI, the petitioner's health condition, and the nature of evidence against him. The petitioner was required to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount and adhere to conditions such as surrendering his passport, not leaving the National Capital Territory of Delhi without permission, and reporting weekly to the CBI. The court emphasized that these directions should not be treated as an expression on the merits of the case.
|
