2022 (4) TMI 468 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of anticipatory bail - criminal conspiracy - issuing forged certificates regarding the existence of unit and its operational status on the basis of which the supplies of coal were made to the alleged companies - HELD THAT - As per the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of BHADRESH BIPINBHAI SHETH VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT ANOTHER 2016 (2) TMI 416 - SUPREME COURT it has held that the nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended, the previous criminal antecedents of the applicant whether he has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction, the possibility of applicant to flee and where the accusation has been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him, are the circumstances that are to be taken into account as per Section 438 Cr.P.C. In the present case, this Court is of the view that since the charge-sheet was filed on 31.05.2012 and the applicant has not misused the liberty granted to him vide various orders, he is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. The anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed, subject to conditions imposed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Allegations of criminal conspiracy and corruption.
2. Validity of anticipatory bail application.
3. Applicant's involvement and criminal history.
4. Applicability of legal precedents and statutory provisions.
5. Conditions for granting anticipatory bail.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Allegations of Criminal Conspiracy and Corruption:
The case revolves around allegations that the applicant, then General Manager of DIC Chandauli, conspired with officials of Northern Coal Fields Limited (NCL) and M/s Jai Durga Industries to issue forged certificates for coal supply. The coal was allegedly sold at a controlled rate of ?1700 per MT, significantly lower than the market price of ?4200 per MT, resulting in undue gains and diversion to the black market.

2. Validity of Anticipatory Bail Application:
The applicant sought anticipatory bail under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC and Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The applicant argued that he was falsely implicated, not named in the FIR, and had no criminal history except for this case. The defense emphasized that the matter was civil in nature and the applicant had not misused interim protection granted by various courts since the charge-sheet was filed on 31.05.2012.

3. Applicant's Involvement and Criminal History:
The defense highlighted that the applicant, aged about 70 years, had no prior criminal history and had complied with all interim protections. The co-accused had already deposited the disputed amount with the Registrar General of Delhi High Court, negating any remaining cause of action. The prosecution, however, argued that the applicant played a crucial role in the conspiracy, facilitating the diversion of coal to the black market.

4. Applicability of Legal Precedents and Statutory Provisions:
The defense cited several Supreme Court judgments, including Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth Vs. State of Gujarat and Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), to argue that anticipatory bail should not be restricted by time or nature of the offense, and that the applicant posed no flight risk. The prosecution countered with the judgment in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, categorizing the case under Category-B and D offenses, which typically do not favor anticipatory bail.

5. Conditions for Granting Anticipatory Bail:
The court considered the facts, the applicant's compliance with previous court orders, and the legal precedents. It concluded that the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail, imposing several conditions:
- The applicant must be available for police interrogation.
- No inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the case facts.
- Surrendering of the applicant's passport to the trial court.
- Prohibition on leaving India without court permission.
- Non-tampering with evidence and non-intimidation of prosecution witnesses.
- Mandatory appearance before the trial court on fixed dates unless exempted.
- Expedited trial within one year from the date of the order.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the anticipatory bail application, emphasizing the applicant's compliance and lack of misuse of previous protections. The court's decision was guided by the principles of personal liberty and judicial discretion, ensuring that the applicant's rights were safeguarded while imposing strict conditions to prevent any misuse of the bail.