TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 1271X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 overl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Kohli, J. 1. The present common order shall decide the bail applications of Mr. Mahesh Kumar (petitioner in Bail Application No. 1268/2013), Mr. N.R. Manjunath (petitioner in Bail Application No. 1273/2013), Mr. Vijay Singla (petitioner in Bail Application No. 1255/2013) and Mr. Sandeep Goyal (petitioner in Bail Application No. 1274/2013), arising out of Charge-sheet No. 3/2013 dated 2.7.2013 for the offences under Section 120B IPC read with Sections 7, 8 12 of the PC Act, 1988 in case FIR No. RC-2172013A0004. The brief facts of the case registered by the respondent/CBI on 3.5.2013, are that it had received information that Mr. Mahesh Kumar (accused No. 1), Member (Staff), Railway Board, was in regular contact with Mr. N.R. Manjunath (accused no. 2), Managing Director of M/s. G.G. Tronics India Pvt. Ltd., and was trying to get a posting as Member (Electrical), Railway Board by illegal and wrongful means. 2. As per the charge-sheet, Mr. Mahesh Kumar and Mr. N.R. Manjunath were in contact with a private businessman/industrialist by the name of Mr. Sandeep Goyal (accused no. 3), a resident of Panchkula, Haryana, who had given an assurance that he was in a position to get the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e latter asked Mr. N.R. Manjunath and Mr. Sandeep Goyal to explore another option and manage for him the additional charge of S T Directorate from the portfolio of Member (Electrical), Railway Board alongwith the additional charge of General Manager, Western Railways. 5. Finally, on 30.4.2013, Mr. N.R. Manjunath had allegedly informed Mr. Sandeep Goyal that 25% of the illegal gratification would be paid to him if the second option referred to hereinabove was executed and on the same day, Mr. N.R. Manjunath conveyed the said instructions to Mr. Sandeep Goyal and informed him that he was arranging a sum of ₹ 1.00 crore immediately. 6. Just to complete the chain, there are two other persons against whom the charge-sheet has been filed by the respondent/CBI, though they were not named in the FIR, namely Mr. C.V. Venugopal (accused no. 9) and Mr. M.V. Murali Krishnan (accused no. 10). Mr. C.V. Venugopal is stated to be working as a Manager (Marketing and Planning) in G.G. Tronics India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore (a company of which Mr. Mr. N.R. Manjunath is the Managing Director). He is also stated to be the Managing Director of M/s. Venkateshwara Nirman Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi (a co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hil Daga and ₹ 10.00 lacs was withdrawn from the account of M/s. Venkateshwara Nirman Pvt. Ltd. for being paid to Mr. Vijay Singla at Chandigarh. 12. A perusal of the charge-sheet reveals that on 2.5.2013, Mr. Sandeep Goyal had telephoned Mr. N.R. Manjunath enquiring about the money and the latter had agreed to deliver a sum of ₹ 90.00 lacs at Chandigarh on the very next day. On 3.5.2013, the sum of ₹ 90.00 lacs was dispatched through two persons arranged by Mr. Rahul Yadav and Mr. Sameer Sandhir on the directions of Mr. N.R. Manjunath, who was acting for and on behalf of Mr. Mahesh Kumar. When the said amount was being delivered in the official premises of Mr. Vijay Singla at Chandigarh, a team of officers from the respondent/CBI had raided the said premises and recovered a sum of ₹ 89,68,000/- in the presence of Mr. Vijay Singla and Mr. Sandeep Goyal. 13. Thereafter, Mr. Mahesh Kumar (accused no. 1) was arrested on 3.5.2013, and Mr. N.R. Manjunath (accused no. 2), Mr. Sandeep Goyal (accused no. 3), Mr. Vijay Singla (accused no. 4), Mr. Rahul Yadav and Mr. Sameer Sandhir, were arrested on 4.5.2013, Mr. Ajay Garg (accused no. 5) was arrested on 7.5.201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ailway Board, the Minister had informed the former that there was no vacancy for Member (Electrical), and the decision for selection to the posts of Chairman Railway Board, Member (Staff), Member (Traffic), Member (Mechanical), that were going to fall vacant on 30.4.2013, would be taken only when the time would be ripe. The Railway Minister had further stated that Mr. Vijay Singla was not involved in his official deliberations and official decisions and could not influence them and he did not have any knowledge about the meeting allegedly arranged at his official residence between Mr. Mahesh Kumar, Mr. N.R. Manjunath and Mr. Sandeep Goyal at the instance of Mr. Vijay Singla, when he was staying there on 7.4.2013. 18. It was canvassed that the only vacancy that had arisen at the relevant point in time was that of Member (Staff), Railway Board and since Mr. Mahesh Kumar had been duly appointed to the said post, there is no basis for the respondent/CBI to have charged the petitioners for allegedly arranging bribe money for his appointment as Member (Electrical) and even if there was any such plan, as alleged, it stood aborted when Mr. Mahesh Kumar was appointed as Member (Staff), R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the learned Special Judge, CBI while rejecting the applications of the petitioners for seeking regular bail that they are influential persons who can tamper with the evidence and can influence the witnesses, is based on mere ipse dixit and simply because charges have not yet been framed in the case cannot be a ground to deny them bail. It was further submitted that a person on bail is in a better position to defend himself during the trial and this consideration ought to weigh with the Court while deciding the present applications. 22. On merits, it was argued that the material available with the respondent/CBI against the petitioners are recorded conversations and it is a settled legal position that the said conversations cannot be treated as primary evidence for purposes of conviction, but only as corroborative evidence and therefore, there is least possibility of convicting the petitioners for the offences charged. To buttress the said submission, Mr. Arvind Nigam, Senior Advocate had referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Bhagirathsinh s/o. Mahipat Singh Judeja Vs. State of Gujarat reported as (1984) 1 SCC 284 and Ram Singh and others Vs. Col. Ram Sin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lic Limited Company listed on the Bombay Stock Exchange. He is a married man and has one child of 15 years and is residing with his family at Chandigarh, Haryana. He has clean antecedents, is not involved in any other criminal case and has deep roots in the society and therefore, is unlikely to flee from justice. 28. Appearing on behalf of Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Mr. Anil Sapra, Senior Advocate had submitted that his client is 44 years of age and is a businessman working for gain and residing at Chandigarh, Haryana, with his wife and a minor son, who are solely dependent on him. It was submitted that he has clean antecedent and no criminal case is pending against him and nor is he a previous convict. 29. Lastly, learned Senior Advocates appearing for all the four petitioners had stated that the prosecution has cited ninety witnesses and has filed a number of documents that shall take a very long time for examination during the trial. It was also pointed out that the report of the CFSL in respect of the voice samples sent for comparison by the respondent/CBI has yet to be received and therefore, it was unlikely that the trial could commence in the near future and in such circumstan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a continuous one and even after his appointment as Member (Electrical), Railway Board, Mr. Mahesh Kumar had made continuous efforts to get the additional charge of S T and General Manager, Western Railways. It was contended that once the Special Judge, CBI had taken cognizance of the offences, this was not the stage to go into the merits of the case. Learned counsels had urged that the petitioners cannot claim parity with two other co-accused, namely, Mr. Dharmender Kumar and Mr. Vivek Kumar, who had been granted bail by the Special Judge as their role was that of couriers who had carried the bribe amount on the directions of Mr. Rahul Yadav, as against the role of the petitioners herein who are the main accused and were actively involved in the conspiracy. 34. It was argued on behalf of the respondent/CBI that if the court enlarges the petitioners on bail, then there is a reasonable apprehension that they may influence the witnesses as they have high contacts in the society, particularly, Mr. Mahesh Kumar (accused no. 1). Mr. R.V. Sinha pointed out that at the time of his arrest, Mr. Mahesh Kumar was holding the post of Member (Staff), Railway Board and being a very high ranki ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rical), Railway Board, and later on when he came to be appointed as Member(Staff) Railway Board, to manage to carve out for him the additional charge of S T Directorate from the portfolio of Member (Electrical), and of G.M. Western Railways. As a part of the said conspiracy, Mr. Mahesh Kumar and Mr. N.R. Manjunath had roped in Mr. Sandeep Goyal, who was a close friend of Mr. Vijay Singla, nephew of the then Railway Minister, Mr. Pawan Kumar Bansal, and Mr. Singla had agreed to use his personal influence in exchange of pecuniary gratification for achieving the said object. 39. Having perused the charge-sheet, prima facie it cannot be contended that the respondent/CBI has failed to make out a case of conspiracy for the offences punishable under Section 120B IPC read with Sections 7, 8 and 12 of the PC Act. In any event, at this stage, the allegations levelled by the prosecution have to be taken on their face value. The Court must also ensure that there is no pre-judging and no prejudice is caused to either side, and the merits of the case must be left to be decided by the trial court [Ref: Puran Etc. Vs. Rambilas Anr. (2001) 6 SCC 338, Ram Govind Upadhyay Vs. Sudarshan Singh and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in the said case, the investigation was complete and the charge-sheet had been filed, and the maximum punishment prescribed for the offence for which the accused was booked, was of seven years, whereas in the present case, the maximum punishment prescribed for the offence alleged against the petitioners may extend upto five years and therefore the petitioners are better placed than the petitioner in the aforesaid case. 43. In the case of Sanjay Chandra (supra), the Supreme Court had examined the concept and philosophy of bail, as was considered in the case of Vaman Narain Ghiya v. State of Rajasthan reported as (2009) 2 SCC 281, wherein it was observed that bail may be regarded as a mechanism whereby the State devolutes upon the community the function of securing the presence of the prisoners and at the same time, involves participation of the community in administration of justice. The following observations made by the Supreme Court while discussing the object of bail, are apposite:- 21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r is the only test, we would not be balancing the Constitutional Rights but rather recalibration of the scales of justice. XXX XXX XXX 27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It is also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. XXX XXX XXX 40. The grant or refusal to grant bail lies within the discretion of the Court. The grant or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. But at the same time, right to bail is not to be denied merely because of the sentiments of the community against the accused. The primary purposes of bail in a criminal case are to relieve the accused of imprisonment, to relieve the State of the burden of keeping him, pending the trial, and at the same time, to keep the accused constructively in the custody of the Court, whether before or after conviction, to assure that he will submit to the jurisdiction of the Court and be in attendance thereon whenever his presence is required. 41. This Court in Gurcharan Singh and Ors. Vs. State AIR 197 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y. In this background, in cases where corruption is indulged in by persons holding high positions of power and bestowed with authority, judicial rectitude demands that public interest be kept on a high pedestal. At the same time, the Court must not lose its objectivity or go overboard. It is required to maintain an even handed approach while exercising its judicial discretion in a case where it is alleged by the prosecution that the accused have committed an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the said accused approach the Court for relief against deprivation of their personal liberty. 46. While deciding whether the petitioners herein should be enlarged on bail or bail should be denied to them, the factors to be taken into consideration have already been enumerated above. Both, the seriousness of the charge and the severity of the punishment are also a relevant consideration while examining the bail applications. In the present case, the charge is that of a conspiracy between the accused who were allegedly working in tandem to mobilize illegal gratification to secure a plum post for the main accused, Mahesh Kumar (accused no. 1) in exchange of pecuniary advantage ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te, the charge-sheet has also been filed and the recordings of the telephonic conversation that are in the custody of the prosecution have already been forwarded to the CFSL for analysis. 49. As for influencing the witnesses, out of a list of ninety witnesses cited by the prosecution, except for a handful of witnesses, who are employed with the Railway Ministry, all the remaining witnesses are official witnesses. That Shri Mahesh Kumar was a Member (Staff), Railway Board is not considered sufficient ground to arrive at a conclusion that he would dissuade the witnesses, who are working with the Railways from deposing against him, more so when he has been suspended from service. In any case, no allegation has been levelled against any of the petitioners that they had interfered in the course of the investigation or had extended any threats to the prosecution witnesses or intimidated them in any manner. The contention of the learned counsels for the respondent/CBI that the trial court is well entitled to direct further investigation in the case under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. is considered rather tenuous for insisting on the continued incarceration of the petitioners. Furthermo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
