Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2010 (1) TMI HC This
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 ₹ 7,00,000/- and the consequent recovery of ₹ 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 ₹ 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 ₹ 50,000/- with two sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge.
|