2021 (3) TMI 1279 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of Bail - change in material circumstances which have uprooted the prosecution version - framing of charges against applicant - Section 120-B read with Section 7(c), 7(a) and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - medical condition of applicant also not good - HELD THAT - This court is of the view that there is no doubt that two eye-witnesses of preparation of trap proceedings have not been recorded as yet who are independent witnesses but PW-3 Amrendra, who is Manager of Hotel, Kapoor Inn, has stated that the raid was made at the said hotel which is located in Delhi, and has further stated that co-accused Ranveer Singh was arrested from his hotel when the raid was conducted by C.B.I. and on this ground, co-accused Ranveer Singh has been allowed bail. This Court is of the view that benefit of bail has already been allowed to the co-accused Ranveer who is one of the main accused in this case who was said to have gone to the house of co-accused V.S. Rathore with an amount of ₹ 20,00,000/- to be handed over to the applicant and the said coaccused V.S. Rathore. It has come on record that the applicant was never found present on the scene of occurrence and his presence is only being tried to be established on the basis of telephonic conversations between them and it is being stated that he was in the vicinity but having sensed that police was at the place near about, he fled from there feigning that his father had slipped in the bathroom so as to avoid his arrest. This would indicate that this is a factual aspect which needs to be decided at the time of trial but as on date, it may be taken that benefit of bail has been granted to the co-accused Ranveer Singh and the said benefit may also be granted to the accused-applicant as his case is on better footing as he was not arrested on the spot. As regards medical held, record shows that he was having fibrosis in his lung and he was found Covid-19 positive and was admitted at the higher standard hospital, therefore possibility of adverse effect on his health also cannot be ruled out and lastly this Court finds that nothing has been brought on record from the side of prosecution that he did not appear regularly before the trial court as five witnesses have already been recorded and no instance of him having influenced witnesses of prosecution has been given so far, although it has been stated in counter affidavit that if he is released, he would tamper with the evidence but mere suspicion cannot take place of proof and having seen that he did not misuse his interim bail, this would be an additional ground to release him on bail. Let the applicant Sunil Dutt involved in aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the conditions imposed - application allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Second Bail Application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
2. Change in material circumstances since the first bail application.
3. Allegations of conspiracy and demand for illegal gratification.
4. Applicant's involvement and presence at the crime scene.
5. Recovery of money and its legitimacy.
6. Medical condition of the applicant.
7. Prosecution's rebuttal and evidence.

Issue-wise Analysis:

1. Second Bail Application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.:
The applicant moved the second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. after the first bail application was dismissed. The present application was filed due to a change in material circumstances that allegedly weakened the prosecution's case against the applicant.

2. Change in Material Circumstances:
The applicant argued that the prosecution's case had been significantly weakened after the examination of five prosecution witnesses, who allegedly demolished the prosecution's case. Additionally, a co-accused had been granted bail, which further supported the applicant's plea.

3. Allegations of Conspiracy and Demand for Illegal Gratification:
The prosecution's case, as narrated in the FIR, alleged that the applicant conspired with co-accused and demanded illegal gratification to influence an investigation. The CBI laid a trap based on a telephonic conversation, and ?20,00,000/- was recovered from the co-accused's flat. The applicant was not named in the FIR or pre-trap memo, and no incriminating evidence was found against him.

4. Applicant's Involvement and Presence at the Crime Scene:
The applicant was not present at the scene where the trap was laid. The prosecution's case relied on telephonic conversations to establish the applicant's involvement. The applicant argued that there was no direct evidence linking him to the crime scene, and no specimen of his voice was taken for forensic analysis.

5. Recovery of Money and Its Legitimacy:
The prosecution claimed that ?18,00,000/- was recovered from the applicant's house. The applicant rebutted this, stating that the money was recovered from his brother's house and was meant for repaying a financial assistance. The applicant provided evidence to show that the house belonged to his brother and that the money was not his.

6. Medical Condition of the Applicant:
The applicant argued that he was in a critical medical condition, having been a Covid-19 positive patient with lung fibrosis. He was 59 years old and about to retire, and his medical condition was a ground for bail.

7. Prosecution's Rebuttal and Evidence:
The prosecution argued that the applicant conspired with co-accused to obtain undue relief in a pending case. They provided evidence of intercepted telephonic conversations and the recovery of money. The prosecution also mentioned that the applicant refused to give his voice specimen and used multiple SIM cards. However, the prosecution could not prove that the applicant influenced witnesses or tampered with evidence during his interim bail.

Judgment:
The court concluded that the applicant's case was on a better footing than the co-accused who had already been granted bail. The applicant was not arrested on the spot, and there was no direct evidence linking him to the crime scene. The recovery of money from his brother's house and his medical condition were additional grounds for bail. The court granted bail to the applicant with specific conditions to ensure he does not tamper with evidence, intimidate witnesses, or engage in criminal activities. The court also noted that the applicant should surrender his passport and not leave the country without permission.

Conditions for Bail:
1. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.
2. The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
3. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
4. The applicant shall surrender his passport before the trial court and not leave the country without permission.

Conclusion:
The court granted bail to the applicant, taking into consideration the change in material circumstances, the lack of direct evidence against him, the recovery of money from his brother's house, and his medical condition. The court imposed specific conditions to ensure the applicant's compliance with legal proceedings.