2013 (5) TMI 896 - SC - Indian Laws

Grant of bail - Held that - Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offence having deep rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds needs to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations. Taking note of all these facts and the huge magnitude of the case and also the request of the CBI asking for further time for completion of the investigation in filing the charge sheet(s), without expressing any opinion on the merits, we are of the opinion that the release of the appellant at this stage may hamper the investigation. However, we direct the CBI to complete the investigation and file the charge sheet(s) within a period of 4 months from today. Thereafter, as observed in the earlier order dated 05.10.2012, the appellant is free to renew his prayer for bail before the trial Court and if any such petition is filed, the trial Court is free to consider the prayer for bail independently on its own merits without being influenced by dismissal of the present appeal.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the appellant has made out a case for bail.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the appellant has made out a case for bail:

The appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 24.01.2013 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, which dismissed the appellant's petition for bail. The appellant, Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy, was named as an accused in a case registered by the CBI under various sections of the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The investigation revealed that the appellant, with the aid of his father, the then Chief Minister, amassed illegal wealth through various companies and investments, resulting in significant public injury.

The appellant was arrested on 27.05.2012 and has been in judicial custody since. Multiple bail applications filed by the appellant were dismissed by the Special Judge for CBI Cases and the High Court, citing the serious nature of the offenses and the potential influence on witnesses due to the appellant's personal and financial clout. The Supreme Court had earlier directed the CBI to complete the investigation expeditiously and allowed the appellant to renew his bail application upon completion of the investigation.

During the hearing, the CBI submitted a counter affidavit and Status Report detailing the progress of the investigation and the involvement of various companies and individuals in the alleged conspiracies. The CBI highlighted ongoing investigations into companies like M/s Dalmia Cements, M/s Sandur Power Company Ltd., Bharti Cements, and others, involving transactions worth hundreds of crores of rupees. The CBI argued that the investigation was still ongoing, and releasing the appellant on bail could hamper the investigation and influence witnesses.

The court noted the seriousness of economic offenses and the need for a different approach in bail matters involving such offenses. It emphasized the potential threat to the financial health of the country posed by deep-rooted conspiracies involving significant public funds. The court considered the nature of accusations, the evidence available, the severity of potential punishment, the appellant's character, and the possibility of witness tampering.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeal for bail, directing the CBI to complete the investigation and file charge sheets within four months. The appellant was allowed to renew his bail application before the trial court upon completion of the investigation, with the trial court to consider the application independently on its merits.