9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (8) TMI 1108 - SC - Indian LawsCancellation of bail granted to the respondent - Held that - if irrelevant materials have been taken into account or relevant materials have been kept out of consideration, the order granting bail to the accused cannot be sustained. In the same way, if there is specific allegation by the prosecution that the accused in question was a party to the criminal conspiracy, neither the Special Court nor the High Court is justified in granting bail to the said person. - It is pointed out by the CBI that investigation is under progress regarding the transactions relating to Sandur Power Company which involved many foreign transactions and the present respondent V.Vijay Sai Reddy (A-2) was the main person who dealt with all the foreign transactions for which evidence is available. It is also highlighted that V.Vijay Sai Reddy (A-2) has played a main role in pumping crores of money to M/s Jagathi Publications Private Limited through several companies like Artillegence Bio-Innovations Ltd., Bay Inland Finance Pvt. Ltd., Bhaskar Fund Management Pvt. Ltd., and other individuals based in Kolkata and Mumbai. Likewise, VANPIC s grant of mining lease and permits to several group of companies, the investigation is under progress and custodial interrogation from the appellant is required. Investigation disclosed that respondent A-2 was nominated as a part time nonexecutive Director of Oriental Bank of Commerce by the Ministry of Finance vide notification dated 14.12.2006 based on the recommendation of late Dr. Y.S. Rajasekhara Reddy, the then Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh and father of A-1. It is the assertion of the CBI that respondent A-2 was not only the direct beneficiary of the post of Director in a Nationalised Bank but was also a key conspirator and facilitated for fiddling with public money of the said bank. As the Director of the bank, he also facilitated a loan of ₹ 200 crores to A-1 without any security and was also appointed as a Member of Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams. - It is pointed out that so far 110 witnesses have been examined and as many as 1382 documents running into several thousands of pages have been collected in respect of investment through paper companies based in Kolkata and Mumbai, popularly known as suit case companies. Even in the case of Indus Projects and Lepakshi Knowledge Hub Pvt. Ltd., according to the CBI, the role of respondent A-2 is being ascertained. Finally, it is pointed out that the role of respondent (A- 2) in matters of Raghuram Cements and Sandur Power are yet to be completed, hence, the presence of respondent herein (A-2), who is outside the judicial custody would definitely hamper the smooth investigation and blunt the due process of law through his deceptive and subtle manipulations to influence, intimidate and threaten the witnesses. - It is true that the Special Judge while granting bail imposed certain conditions and the High Court has also added some more additional conditions, however, taking note of few instances in which how the respondent has acted, it cannot be possible for the investigating agency to collect the remaining materials for the remaining three charge sheets to be filed. In such circumstances, we are satisfied firstly the Special Court took irrelevant materials for consideration for grant of bail and secondly, the High Court having arrived definite conclusion that several findings of Special court are unacceptable or irrelevant but ultimately affirmed the very same order of the special Judge granting bail. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purpose of granting bail, the Legislature has used the words reasonable grounds for believing instead of the evidence which means the Court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. - High Court has mistakenly taken into account the irrelevant materials and kept out the relevant materials, which had to be considered for the grant of bail. - special Judge committed an error in granting bail and the same was erroneously affirmed by the High Court. - Decided in favour of appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Cancellation of bail granted to the respondent. 2. Role of the respondent in the alleged criminal conspiracy. 3. Justification for granting bail by the Special Judge and affirmation by the High Court. 4. Relevance of materials considered by the lower courts in granting bail. 5. Impact of bail on ongoing investigation. Detailed Analysis: 1. Cancellation of Bail Granted to the Respondent: The appeal focuses on the cancellation of bail granted to the respondent by the Special Judge, which was affirmed by the High Court. The Supreme Court analyzed whether the lower courts considered irrelevant materials or ignored relevant ones in granting bail. 2. Role of the Respondent in the Alleged Criminal Conspiracy: The respondent, V. Vijay Sai Reddy, was alleged to be a key conspirator in the criminal activities involving Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy (A-1). The CBI accused him of providing false information to inflate the value of shares in M/s Jagathi Publications Pvt. Ltd. and soliciting investments through fraudulent means. The respondent was also implicated in facilitating wrongful gains for various companies and individuals as a quid pro quo for investments in A-1's companies. 3. Justification for Granting Bail by the Special Judge and Affirmation by the High Court: The Special Judge granted bail to the respondent on the assumption that the investigation had concluded, which the High Court later found incorrect. The High Court also noted that the non-arrest of other accused could not be a valid ground for granting bail. Despite these findings, the High Court did not cancel the bail, citing a lack of material evidence presented by the CBI to substantiate their claims. 4. Relevance of Materials Considered by the Lower Courts in Granting Bail: The Supreme Court highlighted that both the Special Judge and the High Court considered irrelevant factors and ignored significant evidence presented by the CBI. The Court emphasized that the presence of the respondent was crucial for the ongoing investigation, as he was allegedly involved in manipulating financial transactions and intimidating witnesses. 5. Impact of Bail on Ongoing Investigation: The Supreme Court noted that the respondent's release on bail could hinder the investigation, as he might influence or intimidate witnesses. The Court underscored the importance of the respondent's custody for completing the investigation related to the remaining charge sheets. Conclusion: The Supreme Court concluded that the Special Judge erred in granting bail and the High Court erroneously affirmed this decision. The Court set aside both orders and directed the CBI to complete the investigation within four months. The respondent was instructed to surrender before the Special Court by 5-6-2013, with the liberty to renew his bail application post-investigation. The appeal was allowed, emphasizing the need for thorough investigation without the respondent's interference.
|
