2012 (1) TMI 376 - HC - Indian Laws

Allegations are regarding procurement of the Time Scoring Results (TSR) - Award tender to Swiss Timing Omega - Seeking grant of regular bail - criminal conspiracy - Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (in short PC Act ) - the allegation qua forgery relates to insertion of an advertisement wherein instead of the words Timing Scoring or/and Result the words Timing Scoring and Result were used the cost of which advertisement was only 69, 603/- which was not cleared by the Petitioner. HELD THAT - In the instant case this court have already noticed that the pointing finger of accusation against the Appellants is the seriousness of the charge . The offences alleged are economic offences which has resulted in loss to the State exchequer. Though they contend that there is possibility of the Appellants tampering witnesses they have not placed any material in support of the allegation. In our view seriousness of the charge is no doubt one of the relevant considerations while considering bail applications but that is not the only test or the factor The other factor that also requires to be taken note of is the punishment that could be imposed after trial and conviction both under the Indian Penal Code and Prevention of Corruption Act. Otherwise if the former is the only test we would not be balancing the Constitutional Rights but rather recalibration of the scales of justice. The provisions of Cr.P.C. confer discretionary jurisdiction on Criminal Courts to grant bail to accused pending trial or in appeal against convictions since the jurisdiction is discretionary it has to be exercised with great care and caution by balancing valuable right of liberty of an individual and the interest of the society in general. It transcends respect for the requirement that a man shall be considered innocent until he is found guilty. If such power is recognized then it may lead to chaotic situation and would jeopardize the personal liberty of an individual. In the facts and circumstances of the case Court is inclined to bail to the Petitioners. It is therefore directed that the Petitioners be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of 5 lakhs with two sureties of the like amount each subject to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. The Petitioners will not leave the Country without the prior permission of the learned Trial Court.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Bail application for offences under the IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act.
2. Medical condition of the petitioner.
3. Allegations of tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses.
4. Delay in trial proceedings.
5. Seriousness of the accusations and their impact on bail considerations.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Bail Application for Offences under IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act:
The petitioners sought bail in connection with an FIR for offences under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioners contended that the allegations, primarily regarding the procurement process for the Time Scoring Results (TSR) system, did not establish a case under Section 467 IPC, which carries a higher punishment. They argued that the procurement was validated by a sub-committee of the Central Government, which found no irregularities. The court noted that the case involved a conspiracy to ensure that STL was awarded the contract for the TSR system through a manipulated procurement process.

2. Medical Condition of the Petitioner:
The petitioner Suresh Kalmadi's counsel highlighted his medical condition, including aortic wall replacement and cerebral atrophy, arguing that his health issues justified granting bail. The court acknowledged the medical condition but noted that the petitioner was receiving adequate medical treatment and had even sought permission to attend Parliament, indicating stability in his health.

3. Allegations of Tampering with Evidence and Influencing Witnesses:
The prosecution argued that the petitioners had harassed and intimidated witnesses while they were working under them, citing statements from PW-1 Sujit Panigrahi, PW-2 V.K. Gautam, and PW-6 V.K. Saxena. However, the court observed that these witnesses had made their statements fearlessly before the CBI after the petitioners were no longer in power, suggesting no ongoing threat. The court found no merit in the contention that the petitioners' presence at large would intimidate witnesses.

4. Delay in Trial Proceedings:
The court noted that the charge sheet was filed on 20th May 2011, followed by supplementary charge sheets. The petitioners argued that the delay was not on their part but due to procedural requirements, such as providing documents in E-form with hyperlinking. The court acknowledged that the trial would take time due to the number of witnesses cited and the supplementary charge sheets filed. The court emphasized that the petitioners had been in custody for a significant period (over eight and ten months, respectively) and there was no allegation of them fleeing from justice.

5. Seriousness of the Accusations and Their Impact on Bail Considerations:
The court referred to the Supreme Court's guidelines in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, emphasizing that bail is the rule and jail an exception. The court balanced the seriousness of the accusations with the petitioners' right to liberty, noting that the evidence was primarily documentary and the trial would be lengthy. The court highlighted the absence of allegations of money trails or other FIRs against the petitioners, and no evidence of them threatening witnesses during the investigation or trial.

Conclusion:
The court granted bail to the petitioners, directing them to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 5 lakhs with two sureties each. The petitioners were restricted from leaving the country without prior permission from the trial court. The petitions were disposed of accordingly, with the court emphasizing the need to balance the seriousness of the accusations with the petitioners' constitutional rights to liberty.