2018 (4) TMI 1846 - HC - Indian Laws

Grant of Bail - acquiring assets disproportionate to his known source of legal income - Nature and gravity of charge and severity of punishment in the event of conviction - Possibility of AO meddling with investigation and tampering the evidence - Proposed marriage of AOs son - HELD THAT - After conducting preliminary searches the value of disproportionate assets increased to 2, 50, 40, 881/-. This figure does not include in itself the worth of valuable articles recovered from the locker of AO in SBI Warasiguda Branch Hyderabad. No doubt in the grounds of bail application it is the contention of AO that out of 19 items cited items 1 to 4 and 6 to 13 alone belong to him and his family members and rest of the items belong to his sister-in-law and others. Even if the said contention is taken into consideration the value of items 1 to 4 and 6 to 13 mentioned in remand report roughly comes to 2, 16, 78, 881/-. However his savings for the said period were only worth 88, 54, 000/-. Therefore even if his contention is accepted still the worth of disproportionate assets comes to 1, 28, 24, 881/- - a careful scrutiny of the aforesaid figures would manifest that even if the contention of petitioner is accepted and some errors in the appraisal of the income expenditure and assets are taken into consideration still AO possessing assets disproportionate to his income cannot be ruled out at this juncture. Of course I must hasten that this is only a theoretical analysis to know about the existence or non-existence of prima facie case to consider the bail application. Ultimate truth has to be exhumed after investigation. Hence there exists a strong prima facie case against AO which requires a thorough investigation. The contention of petitioner that the Registry of High Court has granted permission to register FIR in a post-haste manner does not hold water because the letter dated 17.03.2018 of Director General ACB to the Registrar General would show that upon securing permission the ACB at first conducted discrete enquiry against AO and submitted a report and after satisfying with the prima facie material the High Court accorded permission to register the FIR against AO. Hence it appears a methodical exercise was undertaken prior to registration of FIR. Nature and gravity of charge and severity of punishment in the event of conviction - HELD THAT - It is not out of place here to mention that each time a Judicial Officer is accused of committing bribery or other related offence the reputation of judicial institution itself stands for trial. The judicial edifice is built not with bricks and cement but with belief and confidence reposed by the public on the institution. That is why absolute honesty and integrity are regarded as the minimum qualifications for a Judicial Officer to hold the mace of justice. A minutest impious deed of even a single individual will bring disrepute to the majesty of justice. In that context the impact of the offence has to be viewed even at the stage of bail particularly when prima facie case is found out. Possibility of AO meddling with investigation and tampering the evidence - HELD THAT - AO being Judicial Officer there is a possibility of his finding out the ways to stifle the crucial evidence and scuttle the process of investigation with his legal acumen. Such a possibility cannot be obviated. The contention of AO that the entire investigation is completed with the searches conducted at various places and his service record is available with the High Court and hence he cannot tamper with the evidence cannot be countenanced in view of the crucial part of investigation still left over. Ill-health of the petitioner/AO - HELD THAT - The trial Court considering the discharge summary issued by NIMS which revealed his fit condition did not accede to grant bail on the health grounds - there are no reason to come to a different conclusion. Proposed marriage of AOs son - HELD THAT - The petitioner only produced a manuscript of lagna patrika showing the marriage is fixed to be performed on 06.05.2018. No printed wedding card is produced for verification. Even assuming that his sons marriage is going to be held on 06.05.2018 in view of gravity of the offence and pending investigation at the crucial stage a regular and full-fledged bail cannot be granted to AO at this stage. Bail application dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Bail application under Sections 437 and 439 Cr.P.C.
2. Prima facie case against the Accused Officer (AO) under Section 13(1)(e) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
3. Considerations for granting bail in economic and white-collar offences.
4. Arguments presented by the petitioner for bail.
5. Arguments presented by the respondent against granting bail.
6. Health issues of the petitioner.
7. Impact of the pending investigation on the bail decision.
8. Special considerations regarding the marriage of the petitioner’s son.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Bail Application under Sections 437 and 439 Cr.P.C.:

The petitioner/AO sought bail under Sections 437 and 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No.05/RCA-CR-1/2018, which was registered for the offence under Section 13(1)(e) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The AO was accused of acquiring assets worth ?1,96,44,000/- disproportionate to his known sources of legal income.

2. Prima Facie Case Against the AO:

The investigation revealed that the AO had assets worth ?2,50,40,881/-, which were disproportionate to his known income. Despite the AO's contention that some properties belonged to his relatives, the court found a strong prima facie case against him, necessitating thorough investigation.

3. Considerations for Granting Bail in Economic and White-Collar Offences:

The court emphasized the need to balance individual liberty with societal interest, particularly in economic offences. Citing precedents, the court noted that economic offences have far-reaching impacts on society and require a cautious approach in bail matters.

4. Arguments Presented by the Petitioner for Bail:

The petitioner’s counsel argued:
- Only certain properties belonged to the AO and his family, while others belonged to his relatives.
- The High Court granted permission to register the case hastily without seeking the AO’s explanation.
- The ACB officials had already seized relevant records, leaving nothing more for investigation.
- The AO suffered from multiple health problems, including the need for a liver transplant.
- The AO’s presence was essential for his son’s marriage scheduled for 06.05.2018.

5. Arguments Presented by the Respondent Against Granting Bail:

The Special Public Prosecutor argued:
- The High Court granted permission after a thorough discrete enquiry.
- The investigation was at an early stage, and the AO’s disproportionate assets were likely to increase.
- The AO might meddle with the investigation and tamper with evidence, given his legal acumen.
- The AO’s health condition was stable as per medical reports, and jail authorities could attend to any medical needs.
- The gravity of the offence and pending investigation outweighed the AO’s personal reasons for bail.

6. Health Issues of the Petitioner:

The court noted that the AO was found fit by medical authorities and discharged from the hospital. The trial court had previously denied bail on health grounds, and the High Court found no reason to differ.

7. Impact of the Pending Investigation on the Bail Decision:

The court stressed the need for a thorough investigation into the AO’s financial transactions, including investments in M/s. Deepu Constructions and land purchases. The court found that granting bail could jeopardize the investigation, as the AO might use his legal skills to sabotage it.

8. Special Considerations Regarding the Marriage of the Petitioner’s Son:

The court dismissed the bail application but allowed for a temporary bail if the AO could produce a wedding card and affidavit confirming the marriage date. The AO could be temporarily released from 04.05.2018 to 09.05.2018 to attend his son’s marriage, subject to certain conditions.

Conclusion:

The bail application was dismissed due to the strong prima facie case, the need for a thorough investigation, and the potential risk of the AO tampering with evidence. However, the court provided a provision for temporary bail for the AO to attend his son’s marriage, ensuring a balance between legal proceedings and personal circumstances.