2013 (6) TMI 105 - SC - Indian Laws

Non payment of dues against the company - prosecution against the directors - bail - whether the appellant herein has made out a case for regular bail and whether the High Court is justified in dismissing his bail application. - held that - we are conscious of the fact that the present appellant along with the others are charged with economic offences of huge magnitude. At the same time, we cannot lose sight of the fact that though the investigating agency has completed the investigation and submitted the charge sheet including additional charge sheet, the fact remains that the necessary charges have not been framed, therefore, the presence of the appellant in custody may not be necessary for further investigation. In view of the same, considering the health condition as supported by the documents including the certificate of the Medical Officer, Central Jail Dispensary, we are of the view that the appellant is entitled to an order of bail pending trial on stringent conditions in order to safe guard the interest of the CBI.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Regular Bail Application
2. Health Grounds for Bail
3. Delay in Trial
4. Economic Offences and Bail Conditions

Detailed Analysis:

1. Regular Bail Application:
The primary issue in this case is whether the appellant has made out a case for regular bail and whether the High Court was justified in dismissing his bail application. The appellant, the joint managing director of a public limited company, was involved in multiple FIRs filed by various banks due to non-payment of advances. The High Court had previously rejected his application for regular bail, prompting the appellant to file an appeal before the Supreme Court.

2. Health Grounds for Bail:
The appellant argued for bail on medical grounds, citing various ailments certified by leading doctors, including the Medical Officer, Central Jail Dispensary, Ahmedabad. The appellant's health conditions included hypertension, partial disability in his left arm, blindness in his right eye, obstructive jaundice, and hearing loss. The Supreme Court noted that A2 and A3 were granted bail on medical grounds and considered the appellant's health condition as supported by medical certificates.

3. Delay in Trial:
The Supreme Court acknowledged the delay in the trial process. Despite the assurance by the Additional Solicitor General that the trial would be completed within three months, the trial had not commenced due to various reasons, including the complexity of the case, the volume of materials, and the workload on the Special Court. The court referred to previous decisions, emphasizing that prolonged detention of undertrial prisoners violates Article 21 of the Constitution.

4. Economic Offences and Bail Conditions:
While recognizing the seriousness of the economic offences involving huge financial implications, the Supreme Court balanced this against the appellant's prolonged detention and health conditions. The court referred to its decision in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, where bail was granted despite the magnitude of the economic offences. The court imposed stringent conditions for bail to safeguard the interests of the CBI.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court ordered the release of the appellant on bail, subject to stringent conditions, including executing a bond with two solvent sureties, non-inducement of witnesses, presence in court on hearing dates, surrendering of passport, and liberty for the CBI to seek modification of the bail order if conditions are violated. The appeal was disposed of on these terms, balancing the appellant's right to liberty with the need to ensure a fair trial and protect the interests of the prosecution.