TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 1457X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imhulu v. Public Prosecutor, [ 1977 (12) TMI 143 - SUPREME COURT] , Vaman Narain Ghiya v. State of Rajasthan, [ 2008 (12) TMI 446 - SUPREME COURT] , State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi, [ 2005 (9) TMI 659 - SUPREME COURT] has ultimately held that the applicant can be released on bail by imposing appropriate conditions. It is pertinent to note that the applicant is behind bar since 14.5.2015 and investigation is over. The Court has not even framed charge in the matter. There are about 12 accused and about 100 witnesses and there is voluminous record of documents which are relied upon by the prosecution. It is also pertinent to note that the applicant was released on temporary bail and has surrendered in Jail in time. It is not the case that he has ever tried to misuse the liberty granted to him. It is opined that this is not a heinous crime wherein there is an apprehension that he may tamper with the prosecution witnesses or is danger to the Society at large. The case is based on documentary evidences which is required to be proved by the prosecution at the time of trial. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the papers of investigation and charge-s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to appoint different type of Officers to execute the project. Accordingly, he appointed several officers who are named in the FIR as accused persons. They were like Senior Managers, General Managers, Assistant Managers, Civil Engineers etc. in different type of wings of the Company. 2.4 Subsequent to August 2013 i.e. discontinuation of the applicant as the Executive Chairman of MEGA, new management took over the Company. The management found that the accused who have been named in the FIR, by creating forged documents like bogus purchase orders, bogus bills etc. made payments to several companies though no work was carried out by those companies. The State of Gujarat established a special unit for examining this aspect in which technical experts like Chief Engineer and other officers were included. The said unit examined the payments made by MEGA to several companies and physically verified the site upon which some work was alleged to have been carried out. Prima facie, it was found that MEGA had raised Rs.194.56 Crores to different persons against 2849 bills for excavation of sand supplying filling material etc. for the work done towards 20,67,438.00 Cubic Meters and MEGA compa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as appeared for respondent State and opposed this application. 6. Mr. N.D. Nanavaty, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Ravish D. Bhatt appearing for the applicant would submit that the charges levelled against the present applicant is that amount is alleged to have been paid to different companies for the work not done by them. However, it is not the case of the prosecution that the amount has been paid against work not at all done. He would submit that the report submitted by the unit established by the Government would be subject to examination by the Court at the time of trial. He would submit that there is a prima facie conclusion by the technical unit that there is difference of about 11.24 Lac Cubic Meters with regard to excavation / filling work which can be established only after examining those officers as witnesses by the prosecution. He would further submit that as far as bills, purchase orders etc. are concerned, the same are in possession of the prosecution and the entire case is based on documentary evidence and, therefore, there is no reason to apprehend that the applicant may tamper with the evidence, if he is released on bail. He would submit that the sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mporary bail by this Court on several occasions and has surrendered in time before the Jail authority and it is not the case of the prosecution that he has ever tried to tamper with the evidence in whatsoever type of it. 9. He would further submit that there are about 12 accused arraigned in the case and about 100 witnesses have been cited by the prosecution and there is voluminous record and, therefore, the trial is likely to take long time. Therefore, the case of the applicant may be considered since he is behind bars since almost one year. 10. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40 and submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court while releasing the accused wherein 2G Spectrum Scam of thousands of crores of rupees was involved, has after considering number of decisions like Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2005) 2 SCC 42, Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor, (1978) 1 SCC 240, Vaman Narain Ghiya v. State of Rajasthan, (2009) 2 SCC 281 etc. as well as in the case of State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21 etc. has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had full trust in him and, therefore, was appointed as Chairman of the Government Company which was established for the aforesaid work. He would submit that the intentions of the applicant, from the beginning of becoming Chairman, was to usurp the Government money by illegal means and, therefore, he had appointed his own employees or those persons of his own confidence who can keep the transactions secret and huge money can be misappropriated by using different type of tactics. He would submit that the applicant is heading a big Company, namely, Neesa Group. He was aware that by creating bogus Companies and keeping the Directors of Neesa Group itself, the money from the MEGA company can easily be transferred and, therefore, he floated such six bogus Companies and about 31.12 Crores of Rupees have been paid to those companies of MEGA wherein almost all Directors are of Neesa group. 13. By taking me through the statement of one Chitrang Mukeshbhai Pandya, he would submit that the applicant, immediately after becoming Chairman of the MEGA Company, arranged a meeting with other co-accused who had either worked with him or were close friends of him. The statement suggests that huge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is a great loss to the public exchequer and the applicant who was acting as a public servant and who was entrusted with huge funds and all powers, has dishonestly misappropriated the amount and subsequently, converted the same for his own use since the said amount has been transferred to his own Companies. Therefore, he is facing a serious charges which would not entitle him for any reliefs as prayed for. He would submit that the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra (Supra) would not be applicable since the accused of the said case were facing charges for those offences for which maximum punishment provided was upto 7 years. By relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Vinod Bhandari v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2015 AIR SCW 1052 (VYAPAM Case) would submit that the Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering the ratio laid down in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation has held that considering the scam therein, each bail application is required to be considered on its own merits and has refused to release the accused on bail though the offences were triable by the learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om MEGA, the work against the same has not been done. 17. In view of the above facts, now the question remains is whether the applicant is required to be enlarged or not. 18. The undisputed facts is that the applicant was Chairman of MEGA and was responsible for the transaction being a head of the Company. However, the investigation is over and time was granted to the State Government for further investigation which has also been completed and supplementary charge-sheet has been submitted on 27.1.2016. In the case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with most important judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court itself and has released the accused who were facing charges for 2G Spectrum scam wherein public exchequer has lost thousands of crores of rupees. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has, after considering the decisions of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2005) 2 SCC 42, Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor, (1978) 1 SCC 240, Vaman Narain Ghiya v. State of Rajasthan, (2009) 2 SCC 281, State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21 has ultimately held that the applicant can be released on bai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... everal hundred pages and the 5 documents on which reliance is placed by the prosecution, is voluminous. The trial may take considerable time and it looks to us that the appellants, who are in jail, have to remain in jail longer than the period of detention, had they been convicted. It is not in the interest of justice that accused should be in jail for an indefinite period. No doubt, the offence alleged against the appellants is a serious one in terms of alleged huge loss to the State exchequer, that, by itself, should not deter us from enlarging the appellants on bail when there is no serious contention of the respondent that the accused, if released on bail, would interfere with the trial or tamper with evidence. We do not see any good reason to detain the accused in custody, that too, after the completion of the investigation and filing of the charge-sheet. 21. As far as the decision in the case of Dr. Vinod Bhandari v. State of Madhya Pradesh (Supra) relied upon by learned Public Prosecutor Shri Amin is concerned, I am of the opinion that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in light of the facts of that case has declined the bail since it was a question of high magnitude indicati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ithin a week if not seized by the concerned authority; [d] not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the Sessions Judge concerned; [e] as agreed and submitted by Mr. N.D. Nanavaty, learned Senior advocate for the applicant, the applicant shall deposit an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lacs Only) before the learned Trial Court within a period of two weeks from today and another Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lacs) before the learned Trial Court within a period of two weeks thereafter and shall file an undertaking to the above effect within a period of one week from today before this Court; [f] mark presence at the concerned Police Station on every Monday of each English Calendar month for a period of one year and thereafter any day of the first week of every English calendar month, till the trial is over, between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m.; [g] furnish the present address of residence to the I.O. and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior permission of this Court; [h] the Investigating Agency shall inform all the International Airports within the Country of India about this order pas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
