TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 1108X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vt. Ltd., Bhaskar Fund Management Pvt. Ltd., and other individuals based in Kolkata and Mumbai. Likewise, VANPIC’s grant of mining lease and permits to several group of companies, the investigation is under progress and custodial interrogation from the appellant is required. Investigation disclosed that respondent A-2 was nominated as a part time nonexecutive Director of Oriental Bank of Commerce by the Ministry of Finance vide notification dated 14.12.2006 based on the recommendation of late Dr. Y.S. Rajasekhara Reddy, the then Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh and father of A-1. It is the assertion of the CBI that respondent A-2 was not only the direct beneficiary of the post of Director in a Nationalised Bank but was also a key conspirator and facilitated for fiddling with public money of the said bank. As the Director of the bank, he also facilitated a loan of ₹ 200 crores to A-1 without any security and was also appointed as a Member of Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams. - It is pointed out that so far 110 witnesses have been examined and as many as 1382 documents running into several thousands of pages have been collected in respect of investment through paper companies ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bail and the same was erroneously affirmed by the High Court. - Decided in favour of appellant. - CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 729 OF 2013 - - - Dated:- 9-5-2013 - P. SATHASIVAM M. YUSUF EQBAL, JJ. JUDGMENT P. Sathasivam, J. 1) Leave granted. 2) This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 13.06.2012 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Petition No. 4387 of 2012, whereby the High Court dismissed the petition filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)-the appellant herein seeking cancellation of bail granted to the respondent herein. Brief facts: 3) On the orders of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Petition Nos. 794, 6604 and 6979 of 2011 dated 10.08.2011, the CBI, Hyderabad, on 17.08.2011, registered a case being R.C. No. 19(A)/2011-CBI-Hyderabad dated 17.05.2011 under Sections 120-B read with Sections 409, 420 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short IPC ) and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the PC Act ) against Y.S. Jaganmohan Reddy (A-1), Member of Parliament and 73 others. (b) V. Vijay Sai R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12, A-2 filed another application for grant of bail before the Special Judge. By order dated 13.04.2012, the Special Judge granted bail to A- (f) Being aggrieved by the order dated 13.04.2012, the CBI filed Criminal Petition No. 3712 of 2012 before the High Court. The High Court, by order dated 20.04.2012, set aside the order dated 13.04.2012 and remanded the matter to the Court of Special Judge to consider the case of A-2 afresh. In the meantime, the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad took cognizance of the charge sheet dated 31.03.2012 against A-1 to A-13 which was numbered as CC No. 8 of 2012. On 30.04.2012, after hearing both the sides afresh in Criminal Misc. Petition No. 715 of 2012 for grant of bail, the very same Special Judge, who passed the earlier order dated 13.04.2012, granted bail to A-2. (g) Aggrieved by the order dated 30.04.2012, the CBI filed Criminal Petition No. 4387 of 2012 before the High Court for cancellation of bail granted to A-2. In the meantime, the CBI filed third chargesheet with respect to the investment made by M/s Ramky Group of Companies. On 29.05.2012 and 30.05.2012, the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases took cognizance of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ighted that the present appellant intimidated many persons for investments in the concerns belonging to A-1. Finally, he submitted that by branding him as Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy s (A-1) man, he collected huge money by way of getting shares in the companies flouted by A-1. In addition to the same, Mr. Ashok Bhan submitted that out of eight charge-sheets, three charge-sheets are yet to be filed for which the CBI requires interrogation and collection of materials through him for which his bail has to be cancelled. By taking us through the reasoning of the Special Court for grant of bail and the affirmation order of the High Court, learned senior counsel for the CBI submitted that both the courts took note of irrelevant considerations, hence, both the orders are liable to be set aside. 7) As against the above contentions, Mr. Raju Ramachandran, learned senior counsel for the respondent, after taking us through the averments in the FIR, allegations in the charge-sheet(s) filed so far submitted that there is no material to show that the appellant has gained anything financially in the alleged transactions. He also pointed out that no investments were made in Jagathi Publications durin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cations Pvt. Ltd. at a high rate, provided false and exaggerated information to M/s Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu India Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Jagadisan Co. and got evaluated M/s Jagathi Publications Pvt. Ltd.. In furtherance of the said conspiracy, V. Vijay Sai Reddy (A-2) unilaterally fixed the premium of M/s Jagathi Publications at ₹ 350/- per share for the sole purpose of soliciting huge amounts as investments. iii) V. Vijay Sai Reddy (A-2) and Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy (A-1) were fully aware of their factual financial position before starting the media company which takes 5 to 6 years for break even to claim profits. In spite of this fact, V. Vijay Sai Reddy (A-2) prevailed over M/s Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu India Pvt. Ltd. by providing false inputs to exaggeratedly evaluate the fiscal status of M/s Jagathi Publications Pvt. Ltd. and also to ante-date the valuation report to suit the stealthy requirements of the company. Thus, Vijaya Sai Reddy (A-2) was instrumental in soliciting the premium @ ₹ 350/- of M/s Jagathi Publications Pvt. Ltd. without any basis. iv) V. Vijay Sai Reddy (A-2) in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy, played a vital role in soliciting investmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... layout plan of M/s RPCIL (A-6) with reduced green belt area confining it to 50 mtrs. in contravention to the decision dated 20.06.2005 and the G.O. No. 345 dated 30.06.2006 notifying the VUDA Master Plan 2021. In this way, A-6 obtained wrongful gain of 914 acres of land inside the Pharma City and by selling the land after dividing it into plots, A-6 obtained a wrongful gain of ₹ 133.74 crores. It is further pointed out that as a Financial Advisor and Founder Director of M/s Jagathi Publications Private Limited, the respondent herein played a very active role and as such he cannot be absolved himself from the conspiratorial role played by him in the affairs of M/s Jagathi Publications Private Limited and is liable for all the irregularities. 13) It is pointed out by the CBI that investigation is under progress regarding the transactions relating to Sandur Power Company which involved many foreign transactions and the present respondent V.Vijay Sai Reddy (A-2) was the main person who dealt with all the foreign transactions for which evidence is available. It is also highlighted that V.Vijay Sai Reddy (A-2) has played a main role in pumping crores of money to M/s Jagathi Pub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly M/s Deloitte Touche Tehmatsu India Private Limited and according to the CBI, he directed this Company to fudge and exaggerate fiscal status of M/s Jagathi Publications Private Limited. It is their claim that it is A-2 who was instrumental in soliciting the premium at ₹ 350 per share of M/s Jagathi publications Private Limited without any basis for actual share of ₹ 10 per share. It is pointed out that on the basis of this false rating of Jagathi Publications Private Limited of which A-2 was the Director, many more companies and individuals were made to invest their money by threat, intimidation, cheating and inducement. It is the specific stand of the CBI that these ratings were falsely projected by A-2. 18) It is also brought to our notice that investigation relating to M/s Sandur Power Company is in progress which involves investigation in foreign countries in which Y.S. Jaganmohan Reddy (A-1) was the Director. As per the investigation, respondent herein (A-2) was the main person, who facilitated formation of M/s Sandur Power Company Ltd.. There is also allegation that Sandur Power Company received huge amounts from two Mauritius based Companies and the source o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eet(s) is filed with reference to the same, it is for the Special Court to consider merit and demerits of the claim of the prosecution. 24) As pointed out by learned senior counsel for the CBI in para 25 of the impugned judgment, the High Court did not agree with the observation of the Special Judge that the investigation has reached to a conclusion. In fact, the High Court has concluded that the above finding is incorrect. In para 26 also, the High Court appreciated and accepted the stand of the CBI that it has been making investigation with regard to other distinct offences that are alleged in the FIR. Interestingly, the High Court has also not accepted the another reasoning of the Special Court for granting bail, namely, that the main accused A-1 and other beneficiaries have not been arrested by the investigating agency. In other words, the High Court has rightly concluded that the circumstance of not arresting the other accused itself cannot be a ground to grant bail. However, after finding fault with certain reasoning and conclusion of the Special Court in granting bail, the High Court has observed that the CBI has not placed any material before the Special Court to substan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ors which appear to be not relevant such as not arresting A-1 and certain other observations of learned Special Judge, such as investigation has been completed appear to be incorrect. Unfortunately, after arriving such conclusion, particularly, criticizing the Special Judge, the High Court on an erroneous ground concluded that it cannot be said that they are totally irrelevant circumstances, therefore, on that ground, I feel that the bail granted to the respondent cannot be cancelled . 26) Finally, though it is claimed that respondent herein (A- 2) being only a C.A. had rendered his professional advise, in the light of the various serious allegations against him, his nexus with the main accused A-1, contacts with many investors all over India prima facie it cannot be claimed that he acted only as a C.A. and nothing more. It is the assertion of the CBI that the respondent herein (A-2) is the brain behind the alleged economic offence of huge magnitude. The said assertion, in the light of the materials relied on before the Special Court and the High Court and placed in the course of argument before this Court, cannot be ignored lightly. 27) It is true that the Special Judge wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
