2011 (11) TMI 861 - HC - Indian Laws

2G Spectrum Scam case - five bail applications for grant of regular bail - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC ACT) - CBI had registered the FIR on the allegations of criminal conspiracy and criminal misconduct against the unknown officials of Department of Telecommunications, Government of India and some unknown private persons/companies and others u/s 120B IPC and u/s 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the (PC ACT) in respect of allotment of Letters of Intent, Unified Access Services (hereinafter referred to as UAS ) Licenses and 2G Spectrum by the Department of Telecommunications. CBI had filed the first charge sheet in the Court of learned Special Judge. A supplementary charge sheet was filed u/s 120B IPC read with Section 7/11/12 of the PC ACT. HELD THAT - the accused are charged of economic offence of huge magnitude and if proved, it may jeopardize the economy of the country, yet at the same time, the Court observed that it cannot lose the sight of the fact that the charge sheet has already been filed and charges have been framed and keeping in view the voluminous nature of documents and the number of witnesses, which are to be examined by the prosecution, it will not be conducive to keep the accused persons incarcerated indefinitely during the period of trial, when there is no serious challenge to their fleeing from the processes of law or tampering with the evidence or not subjecting themselves to such orders as the Court may pass from time to time. It was also contended that the Supreme Court has reiterated the denial of bail to an accused has to be done as an exception and for cogent and sound reasons, as it affects his right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, Court allowed the bail applications of all the five accused persons and they are directed to be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of ₹ 5 lakhs each with two sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, subject to the conditions.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Grant of regular bail to the accused in the 2G Spectrum Scam case.
2. Comparative analysis of charges against the accused.
3. Consideration of Supreme Court's previous rulings.
4. Assessment of flight risk and evidence tampering.
5. Special considerations for certain accused based on health and gender.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Grant of Regular Bail:
The judgment addresses five bail applications for accused involved in the 2G Spectrum Scam case. The applications are interconnected and have a common stand by the CBI. The accused sought bail after the Supreme Court granted bail to other co-accused in a similar context.

2. Comparative Analysis of Charges:
The accused argued that their charges were milder compared to those granted bail by the Supreme Court. A comparative table was presented showing that the maximum sentence for the current petitioners was five years, while others granted bail faced up to seven years. The table highlighted:
- Kanimozhi Karunanithi (A-17): Charged under Section 12 read with Section 7, or alternatively Section 11 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, read with Section 120B IPC (5 years).
- Sharad Kumar (A-16): Similar charges as Kanimozhi, with an additional charge under Section 193 read with Section 120B IPC (7 years).

3. Consideration of Supreme Court's Previous Rulings:
The Supreme Court's decision in Sanjay Chandra's case, which granted bail to co-accused, was pivotal. The Supreme Court emphasized personal liberty and the presumption of innocence, stating that bail is the rule and its denial is an exception. The High Court was bound by this ruling under Article 141 of the Constitution, which mandates compliance with Supreme Court decisions.

4. Assessment of Flight Risk and Evidence Tampering:
The court evaluated whether the accused were flight risks or likely to tamper with evidence. It was concluded that:
- The accused had roots in society and were unlikely to flee.
- Most evidence against them was documentary, reducing the risk of tampering.
- The CBI did not object to granting bail, indicating no significant risk of evidence tampering.

5. Special Considerations:
- Kanimozhi Karunanithi (A-17): As a woman, she was entitled to bail under the proviso to Section 437 of the CrPC, which allows bail for women, sick individuals, and minors even if charged with serious offenses.
- Karim Morani (A-15): Sought bail on medical grounds due to a history of severe coronary disease and other health issues, which could be exacerbated by incarceration.

Conclusion:
The bail applications were allowed based on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the comparative analysis of charges, and the lack of flight risk or evidence tampering concerns. The court directed the accused to be released on bail under specific conditions, ensuring their availability for trial and preventing any interference with the judicial process. The judgment emphasized adherence to the Supreme Court's rulings and the constitutional rights of the accused.