9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (9) TMI 1271 - HC - Indian LawsSeeking for regular bail - Committed offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act - Indulging in conspiracy to mobilize bribe money u/s-120B IPC - Rot of moral depravity is ravaging the very fabric of the nation - Persons of high positions authority indulged in Corruption - Intending to secure plum post - Working in tandem to mobilize illegal gratification - Influential persons can tamper with evidence influence the witnesses - mere ipse dixit - HELD THAT - It is required to maintain an even handed approach while exercising its judicial discretion where the accused have committed an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the accused approaches the Court for relief against deprivation of their personal liberty. the charge is that of a conspiracy of working in tandem to mobilize illegal gratification to secure a plum post in exchange of pecuniary advantage that was agreed to be extended to another person so that official favours extended by one person to another. The maximum punishment for the said offence is imprisonment that may extend to five years. The persons holding high positions/status in the society acts as a safeguard and guarantee for them that they would stand their trial and not attempt to flee from the process of law. At the end of the day the guiding factor for enlarging an accused on bail is to secure his presence to take the judgment and serve the sentence if indicted by the court. The vocation family background antecedents and social circumstances of the petitioners are not found to be unfavourable and they show that the petitioners have roots in the society and thus will never evade the legal process or fail to turn up during the trial. The evidences gathered by the investigating agency are telephonic conversation i.e. electronic evidence and recovery of cash apart from other circumstantial evidence thus Court stated that the likelihood of the persons attempting to erase the evidence appears to be quite remote. In the present case not only is the investigation complete the charge-sheet has also been filed and the recordings of the telephonic conversation that are in the custody of the prosecution will be properly analyzed. Deciding the Bail Applications - HELD THAT - The Court must not overlook while deciding the bail applications is the likelihood of delay in the conclusion of the trial. The Supreme Court has often taken a view that when there is delay in the trial bail should ordinarily be granted to the accused but on case to case basis. The decision in the case of DIPAK SHUBHASH CHANDRA MEHTA VERSUS CBI. 2013 (6) TMI 105 - SUPREME COURT and BABBA ALIAS SHANKAR RAGHUMAN ROHIDA VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA. 2005 (4) TMI 638 - SUPREME COURT followed. Resultantly the persons were enlarged on bail upon furnishing a personal bond in the sum of 5 lacs each with two sureties each of the like amount subject to the following conditions (i) The persons shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any authority. (ii) The petitioners shall not tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses or make any attempt to thwart the trial of the case. (iii) The petitioners shall surrender their passports. (iv) The petitioners shall remain present before the trial court on the dates fixed before it unless they have been exempted by the Special Judge CBI with prior permission. If any of the petitioners violate any of the conditions of bail then the CBI shall be at liberty to approach the Court for seeking cancellation of the bail order. The petitions were disposed of.
Issues Involved:
1. Bail applications of the accused. 2. Allegations of conspiracy and corruption. 3. Arguments for and against granting bail. 4. Judicial considerations for bail. 5. Conditions for granting bail. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Bail Applications of the Accused: The judgment addresses the bail applications of four petitioners arising from a charge-sheet for offenses under Section 120B IPC read with Sections 7, 8, and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The accused sought bail after their applications were rejected by the Special Judge, CBI. 2. Allegations of Conspiracy and Corruption: The case revolves around Mr. Mahesh Kumar, who allegedly conspired with Mr. N.R. Manjunath, Mr. Sandeep Goyal, and Mr. Vijay Singla to secure a posting as Member (Electrical), Railway Board, through illegal means. It was alleged that Mr. Sandeep Goyal demanded Rs. 10 crores from Mr. Mahesh Kumar, with Rs. 5 crores to be paid before and after the appointment. The charge-sheet also implicates other businessmen who were promised official favors in return for their financial contributions. 3. Arguments for and Against Granting Bail: Counsels for the petitioners argued that their clients had been in custody for over 100 days, the charge-sheet had been filed, and no further investigation was required. They contended that the prosecution's case was convoluted and not substantiated by key witnesses. They highlighted the petitioners' clean antecedents, lack of likelihood to abscond, and the absence of any other criminal cases against them. The prosecution, however, argued that the petitioners were influential and could tamper with evidence or influence witnesses. They emphasized the seriousness of the charges and the ongoing nature of the conspiracy. 4. Judicial Considerations for Bail: The court considered various parameters, including the nature of the charge, the evidence, the seriousness of the offense, the punishment, and the likelihood of the accused tampering with evidence or fleeing. The court emphasized that bail is the rule and refusal is the exception, and that detention before conviction should be minimized. The court also noted that the evidence was mainly electronic and circumstantial, reducing the likelihood of tampering. 5. Conditions for Granting Bail: The court granted bail to the petitioners, imposing several conditions: - The petitioners must not induce, threaten, or promise any person acquainted with the case facts. - They must not tamper with evidence or influence witnesses. - They must surrender their passports. - They must appear before the trial court on scheduled dates unless exempted. The court concluded that continued detention would violate the petitioners' personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution and serve no useful purpose, given the likelihood of trial delays. The petitions were disposed of with the provision that the CBI could seek cancellation of bail if conditions were violated.
|
