2012 (7) TMI 1155 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of arrest and compliance with procedural requirements.
2. Grounds for granting or denying bail.
3. Allegations and charges against the petitioner.
4. Impact of the petitioner's political status on the case.

Summary:

1. Legality of Arrest and Compliance with Procedural Requirements:
The petitioner, an elected Member of Parliament, was arrested on 27.05.2012 by the C.B.I. during an ongoing election campaign. The arrest was challenged on grounds of being politically motivated and not complying with Section 170 Cr.P.C., which mandates forwarding the accused under custody to a Magistrate. The court noted that the C.B.I. did not arrest the petitioner when the charge sheets were filed but did so later, which sent wrong signals to the public. The court also addressed the compliance with Section 41A Cr.P.C., which allows for the issuance of a notice for appearance before a police officer. The petitioner argued that the C.B.I. did not provide adequate reasons for the arrest as required by Section 41A(3) Cr.P.C. However, the court found that the reasons provided by the C.B.I. were valid and had already been upheld in a previous order dated 02.06.2012.

2. Grounds for Granting or Denying Bail:
The court considered the gravity of the economic offences alleged against the petitioner, involving a total volume of Rs. 43,000 crores. The court emphasized that while bail is generally a rule and jail an exception, the seriousness of the economic offences and the potential for the petitioner to interfere with the investigation or tamper with evidence warranted a cautious approach. The court referred to the Supreme Court's guidelines on bail, focusing on the likelihood of absconding and tampering with evidence. Given the petitioner's significant public and financial influence, the court found a high likelihood of interference with the investigation.

3. Allegations and Charges Against the Petitioner:
The petitioner faced multiple charges, including offences u/s 120-B, 420, 471 I.P.C., and Sections 9 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The charges involved quid-pro-quo arrangements with industrial and business houses for large investments in the petitioner's corporate concerns in exchange for governmental benefits. The court noted that the petitioner amassed a fortune using his late father's position as Chief Minister. The charge sheets detailed specific instances of land allotments and corporate fraud involving inflated valuations and quid-pro-quo investments.

4. Impact of the Petitioner's Political Status on the Case:
The court acknowledged the petitioner's political status and recent electoral successes but deemed these factors irrelevant to the criminal case and the bail plea. The court emphasized that the petitioner's political influence could potentially be used to tamper with witnesses and evidence, further justifying the denial of bail.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the bail petition, prioritizing the larger interests of society over the petitioner's individual right to bail, given the gravity of the economic offences and the ongoing investigation.