TMI Blog2010 (1) TMI 1291X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny Law Board who had allegedly demanded and agreed to accept an illegal gratification of ₹ 7,00,000/- from Manoj Kumar Banthia. It is further alleged that Manoj Kumar Banthia in turn demanded ₹ 10,00,000/- from Ankur Chawla. The information was that this illegal gratification of ₹ 10,00,000/- will be paid to Manoj who will then pay ₹ 7,00,000/- to the petitioner at his official residence located at 11, W-Block, HUDCO Place Extension, Andrews Ganj, New Delhi. On the basis of this information a case under Section 120B IPC read with Section 7, 8, 12, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered against petitioner, Manoj Kumar Banthia, Company Secretary and Ankur Chawla and the matter was handed over to Sh. Satyender Gossain, Inspector, ACU (IX) for investigation. 3. On 23rd November, 2009 at about 9.00 PM a CBI team consisting of Satender Gosain (Inspector), Sudhansu Shekhar (Inspector) Bhaskar Pratap Singh (Constable), Virender Singh (Constable) along with two independent witnesses Sh. Ashok Kumar and Dr. Sudhir Gupta were organized. The CBI team along with independent witnesses arrived at HUDCO and took suitable po ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eking grant of bail to which reply has been filed by the CBI. 7. I have heard Sh. K.K. Sud the learned senior counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. Sonia Mathur on behalf of the CBI. The contentions of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner are as under: a. It was contended by Mr. Sud that admittedly the petitioner was arrested on 23rd November, 2009 and he was remanded to police custody for a period of seven days. After expiry of the said period further police remand was not sought by the respondent and he was remanded to judicial custody which is indicative of the fact that the petitioner was not required for any custodial interrogation. It was urged that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner incarcerated further especially in the light of the fact that he is a heart patient as he had undergone bypass surgery. It was also contended that although the respondent had sought remand of the petitioner for a period of seven days for the purpose of taking him to Chennai but without taking the petitioner to Chennai the respondent have effected the recovery of cash amounting to ₹ 1,21,23,800/- approximately from the lockers of the petitioner, and ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tered the petitioner will be issued a show cause notice to which he will have time to reply. d. The fourth submission is that the respondent is adopting a discriminatory attitude in the investigation of the matter qua the present petitioner. It is contended that the respondent are hobnobbing with the co-accused Ankur Chawla and are trying to obtain evidence from him only with a view to fix up the present petitioner knowing fully well that it was Ankur Chawla kingpin who was representing the group before the present petitioner in the Company Law Board which is alleged to be requiring a favourable order from the petitioner. It was contended that such discriminatory attitude adopted by the CBI cannot be approved, so as to deprive the benefit of bail being granted to the petitioner. On the contrary, it was contended that this is one of the important consideration on the basis of which the Court must take cognizance and consider it to be a relevant factor for the purpose of grant of bail to the present petitioner. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner in this regard has referred to the observations of this High Court in case Binoy Jacob v. CBI 1993 JCC 131. The learned Counsel c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able offence is a matter of discretion which the Court has exercised judicially but at the same time the bail should not be denied to an accused only as a matter of punishment. There are two paramount considerations which the Court has to consider while enlarging the accused on bail. First as to what is the gravity of the offence and whether the accused would submit himself to processes of law or not? Secondly will the grant of bail endanger the fair investigation or the holding of a fair trial or in other words will the accused tamper with evidence. 12. Keeping in view the above broad parameters 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ail of an accused in case it has slightest prima facie evidence to show that he is influencing or trying to influence the investigation or the witnesses. Accordingly, I feel in the instant case since the nature of evidence which has been collected by the investigating agency is in the form of huge recovery of unaccounted money in cash both from the Delhi residence and Chennai residence, apart from other circumstantial evidence, I feel that the chances of the petitioner trying to erase the evidence or influence that witness are remote and if he tries to do the same investigating agency shall be free to file the application seeking cancellation of his bail. 15. Another point which arises for consideration is the discriminatory treatment of the petitioner qua the other co- accused Ankur Chawla who is named in the FIR. The Sessions Judge had rejected this plea of the petitioner by observing that it is not for the Court to say as to when and which of the accused is to be arrested. This is true that the investigation is in the exclusive domain of the police or the investigating agency and ordinarily the Court would not interfere in the investigation except to the extent what is permitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... while doing so. The Court has certainly not only an obligation but also a right to call upon the investigating agency to explain its actions qua a particular co-accused and in case any reasonable explanation is not given it may draw its own conclusion. 18. These observations of our own High Court are important consideration. In the present case, I feel that 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. 19. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner at the fag end had also referred to Section 6A of the De ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned Special Judge and subject to the following conditions: a. That he shall surrender his passport if not already seized b. That he shall not leave the National Capital Territory of Delhi without the permission of the Trial Court and in case he is given permission to leave NCT of Delhi he shall inform the purpose duration of visit as well the address where he is going to stay. Further, no permission be given to visit Chennai till charge sheet is filed. c. He shall not tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses or do any act which will create a reasonable ground to assume that the petitioner is trying to create hurdle in the fair investigation or trial of the case which will entail cancellation of his bail. d. The petitioner shall report once in a week at 11.00 A.M. to the Superintendent of Police, Sanjay Kumar Singh, CBI ACU IX, at CGO Complex, New Delhi-03 or such other officer as may authorized by him so as to enable them to question the petitioner, if so required, till the time his charge sheet is filed. 22. With these directions, the bail application stands allowed. However, expression of any opinion hereinbefore may not be treated as an expression on the merits of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
