2018 (5) TMI 1806 - HC - Indian Laws

Release on Bail - sections 109 read with section 120B IPC and 13(2) and 13 (1) (e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Held that - Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the sentence awardable to the applicants, the applicants Garima Bhushan and Karuna Singh are entitled to be released on bail. As regards Sunny Yadav, we are not inclined to grant him bail, hence, his bail application is accordingly rejected. Registrar General is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial court for necessary information and compliance forthwith.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
2. Allegations of disproportionate assets and money laundering.
3. Previous court orders and compliance.
4. Evidence and investigation findings.
5. Arguments from both parties.
6. Judicial reasoning and decision on bail.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Bail Application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.:
The applicants Garima Bhushan, Karuna Singh, and Sunny Yadav sought bail in Special Case No. 08 of 2017 under Sections 109 read with 120B IPC and Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The court noted that Section 439 Cr.P.C. allows a High Court or Court of Session to grant bail to a person accused of an offense and in custody. However, the applicants were not initially taken into custody due to an interim protection order from the Supreme Court.

2. Allegations of Disproportionate Assets and Money Laundering:
The FIR indicated that Yadav Singh, the then Chief Engineer, was involved in acquiring disproportionate assets worth ?23,15,41,514/- (512.66%) to his known sources of income. The investigation revealed that his family members, including the applicants, were instrumental in legalizing the ill-gotten money through fake companies and business transactions.

3. Previous Court Orders and Compliance:
The Supreme Court had directed that the applicants should not be arrested for a period of 30 days to enable them to approach the High Court. The applicants filed an application for bail, which was initially rejected by the trial court. The Supreme Court later permitted the High Court to treat the presence of the applicants as surrender and decide the bail application.

4. Evidence and Investigation Findings:
The investigation revealed that the applicants were involved in converting the ill-gotten money of Yadav Singh into white money through various fake companies and business transactions. Statements from witnesses under Section 164 Cr.P.C. confirmed the accommodation entries and fake transactions. The applicants' involvement in these activities was detailed in the investigation report.

5. Arguments from Both Parties:
The applicants' counsel argued that they had cooperated with the investigation and had no criminal history. They contended that the money transactions were legitimate and reflected in their income tax returns. The CBI opposed the bail, citing evidence of disproportionate assets and the applicants' role in money laundering.

6. Judicial Reasoning and Decision on Bail:
The court considered the evidence and the applicants' involvement in the alleged offenses. It noted that Garima Bhushan and Karuna Singh were married to well-placed individuals and their income should be viewed separately. The court granted bail to Garima Bhushan and Karuna Singh, imposing conditions such as not seeking adjournments, remaining present in court, and surrendering their passports. However, the court rejected Sunny Yadav's bail application due to his significant involvement in the offenses. The court provided him interim protection for ten days to approach the Supreme Court.

Conclusion:
The High Court granted bail to Garima Bhushan and Karuna Singh with specific conditions, while rejecting Sunny Yadav's bail application but providing interim protection for ten days. The trial court was directed to expedite the trial and conclude it within a year.