2019 (10) TMI 879 - SC - Indian Laws

Refuse to grant bail - Section 120B IPC read with Section 420 IPC, Section 8 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - alleged irregularities in Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) clearance given to the INX Media for receiving foreign investment to the tune of ₹ 305 crores against approved inflow of ₹ 4.62 crores. When other factors i.e. flight risk and tampering with evidence are held in favour of the appellant, whether the High Court was justified in declining regular bail to the appellant on the apprehension that there is possibility that the appellant might influence the witnesses? HELD THAT - The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of the well-settled principles having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. The following factors are to be taken into consideration while considering an application for bail - (i) the nature of accusation and the severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution; (ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses or apprehension of threat to the complainant or the witnesses; (iii) reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence; (iv) character behaviour and standing of the accused and the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; (v) larger interest of the public or the State and similar other considerations - There is no hard and fast rule regarding grant or refusal to grant bail. At this stage itself, it is necessary for us to indicate that we are unable to accept the contention of the learned Solicitor General that flight risk of economic offenders should be looked at as a national phenomenon and be dealt with in that manner merely because certain other offenders have flown out of the country. The same cannot, in our view, be put in a straight-jacket formula so as to deny bail to the one who is before the Court, due to the conduct of other offenders, if the person under consideration is otherwise entitled to bail on the merits of his own case. Hence, in our view, such consideration including as to flight risk is to be made on individual basis being uninfluenced by the unconnected cases, more so, when the personal liberty is involved. Insofar as the flight risk and tampering with evidence are concerned, the High Court held in favour of the appellant by holding that the appellant is not a flight risk i.e. no possibility of his abscondence . The High Court rightly held that by issuing certain directions like surrender of passport , issuance of look out notice , flight risk can be secured. So far as tampering with evidence is concerned, the High Court rightly held that the documents relating to the case are in the custody of the prosecuting agency, Government of India and the Court and there is no chance of the appellant tampering with evidence. The appellant is not a flight risk and in view of the conditions imposed, there is no possibility of his abscondence from the trial. Statement of the prosecution that the appellant has influenced the witnesses and there is likelihood of his further influencing the witnesses cannot be the ground to deny bail to the appellant particularly, when there is no such whisper in the six remand applications filed by the prosecution. The charge sheet has been filed against the appellant and other co-accused on 18.10.2019. The appellant is in custody from 21.08.2019 for about two months. The co-accused were already granted bail. The appellant is said to be aged 74 years and is also said to be suffering from age related health problems - Considering the above factors and the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the appellant is entitled to be granted bail - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Flight risk
2. Tampering with evidence
3. Influencing witnesses

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Flight Risk:
The High Court initially held that the appellant was not a "flight risk." It observed that measures such as surrendering the passport and issuing a look-out notice could mitigate any risk of flight. The Supreme Court agreed with this assessment, noting that the appellant had not attempted to flee the country despite having interim protection for over a year. The appellant’s status as a Member of Parliament and a Senior Member of the Bar, along with the surrender of his passport and the issuance of a look-out notice, further supported the conclusion that he was not a flight risk.

2. Tampering with Evidence:
The High Court found no risk of tampering with evidence, as the documents related to the case were in the custody of the prosecuting agency and the Court. The Supreme Court upheld this finding, agreeing that the appellant had no opportunity to tamper with evidence since it was securely held by the authorities.

3. Influencing Witnesses:
The High Court denied bail based on the possibility that the appellant might influence witnesses, citing sealed cover submissions that two material witnesses had been approached not to disclose information about the appellant and his son. However, the Supreme Court found this reasoning speculative and unsupported by specific evidence. It noted that there were no details on how or when the witnesses were approached, and no such allegations were made in the multiple remand applications filed by the CBI. The Court emphasized that mere assertions without material basis could not justify denying bail, especially when the appellant had been in custody for nearly two months and had cooperated with the investigation.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and granted bail to the appellant, subject to conditions including executing bail bonds, surrendering the passport, and not leaving the country without permission. The Court dismissed the CBI’s appeal, reiterating that the findings on the merits of the case should not influence the trial or other proceedings. The decision was based on the principles that bail is a rule and jail is an exception, and that each case must be considered on its own merits without generalizing based on unrelated cases.