9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 105X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... L NO. 348 OF 2012 - - - Dated:- 10-2-2012 - P. SATHASIVAM AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ. Mukul Rohtagi, Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Anand Yagnik, Mohit D. Ram and Ms. Meenakshi Arora for the Appellant. P.P. Malhotra, Harish Chandra, P.K. Dey. Ms. Padmalaxmi Nigam and Arvind Sharma for the Respondent. JUDGMENT P. Sathasivam, J. Leave granted. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated October 20, 2011, passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Misc. Application No. 14224 of 2011 whereby the High Court rejected the application for regular bail filed by the appellant herein. Brief facts : (a)The appellant herein is the joint managing director of Vishal Exports Overseas Ltd., a public limited company (hereinafter referred to as "the company") incorporated in the year 1988 as a partnership firm which was converted into a public limited company in 1995 under the provisions of Chapter IX of the Companies Act, 1956. The company is engaged in the business of import and export of diverse commodities including agricultural products and diamonds. According to the appellant, the company was a Government of India recognised Four Star Trading ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant herein was arrested on March 31, 2010 and remanded to police custody till April 3, 2010 and thereafter in the judicial custody. The appellant was granted temporary bail on three occasions on medical ground. After completing the investigation, the CBI submitted charge sheet on June 10, 2010, in which the appellant was arrayed as accused No. 4. (e)On August 31, 2010, the appellant preferred an application for bail after charge sheet was filed before the Special Court vide Criminal Misc. Application No. 141 of 2010 but the same was dismissed. (f)Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 11415 of 2010 before the High Court for regular bail in connection with the FIR lodged by Andhra Bank, Zonal Office Mumbai bearing No. 1(E)/2010 which was dismissed by the High Court on October 19, 2010. (g)After investigation in RC. 12(E)/2009 lodged by the UCO Bank charge sheet was submitted on November 15, 2010 and the appellant was arrested on November 1, 2010 and he was released on temporary bail. (h)Against the order dated October 19, 2010, passed by the High Court, the appellant filed S. L. P. (Crl.) No. 83 of 2011 before this co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ficer, Central Jail Dispensary, Ahmedabad. 6. In so far as the merits of the claim of the appellant is considered, it is useful to refer to the recent decision of this court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation [2012] 1 SCC 40. Since in this decision, all the earlier decisions of this court relating to grant of bail in a matter of this nature have been considered, we feel that no other earlier decisions need be referred to. Those appeals were directed against the common judgment and order of the learned single judge of the High Court of Delhi dated May 23, 2011, in Sanjay Chandra's case (supra) by which the learned single judge refused to grant bail to the appellant-accused therein. The allegations against those accused appellants were that they entered into a criminal conspiracy for providing telecom services to otherwise ineligible companies and by their conduct, the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) suffered huge loss. The learned Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi rejected the bail applications filed by them by order dated April 20, 2011. The appellants therein moved applications before the High Court under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not been framed due to various reasons as mentioned above. 10. We have already pointed out that in so far as the present case is concerned among the four accused A1 is a company, A2 and A3 were granted bail on medical grounds. According to the present appellant, i.e., A4, he was arrested on March 31, 2010, by the CBI and was remanded to police custody for three days. Since April 3, 2010, he is in the judicial custody at Sabarmati Central Jail, Ahmedabad and on September 15, 2011, he was granted interim bail up to October 20, 2011 and again on October 19, 2011, considering his health conditions, the Special Court extended his interim bail till November 30, 2011. As stated earlier, the CBI has completed the investigation and submitted the charge sheet on June 10, 2010 and the offences alleged in the charge sheet are of the years 2006 and 2007. 11. Mr. Rohtagi, learned senior counsel, after taking us through various proceedings by the civil court as well as DRT under SARFAESI Act submitted that entire properties of the appellant and their companies/firms were attached by the orders of the court/Tribunal. According to him, before entering into transaction with the banks, all those ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n placed on record. In addition to the same, Mr. Rohtagi by drawing our attention to the certificate dated August 7, 2011, issued by the Central Prison Hospital, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad stated that even according to the Medical Officer of the Central Jail Dispensary, the appellant is suffering from various ailments as mentioned in the certificate which reads as under : "Out No. ACJD/346/2011 Central Prison Hospital Sabarmati, Ahmedabad Date : August 7, 2011 CERTIFICATE This is to certify that Mr. Dipak Shubhash Mehta is an under trial prisoner of the Central Jail, Ahmedabad with prisoner No. 4077. He complains of continuous precordial chest pain dullache like heaviness in chest, Gabharaman, giddiness, chronic Rt. Hypochondriach pain in abdomen, bleeding P/R. dimness of vision Rt. Eye vision deviation of Rt. Eye outward since 1- years. Patient is a known case of uncontrolled blood pressure since 4 years, chronic obstructive jaundice since 6 months and fissure in anno with piles. Patient was sent to eye dept. Civil Hospital Ahmedabad on February 2, 2011, seen by Dr. K. P. S. (Ophthalmic Surgical Unit) and diagnosed as Rt. Eye glaucoma, 3rd nerve palsy in Rt. Eye with vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... perintendent of Police, CBI, and Bank Securities and Fraud Cell, Mumbai. The appellant has also filed rejoinder affidavit repudiating those factual details. At this juncture, it is unnecessary to go into further details. In the earlier order, we have noted the assurance of the ASG for completion of the case within three months. Admittedly, the same was not fulfilled due to various reasons. It is also not in dispute that though the charge sheet and additional charge sheet were submitted to the court, the same have not been approved and framed. In the meanwhile, apart from absence of some of the accused on various dates, due to some reasons or other including medical grounds, the appellant herein has also filed a petition for "discharge". Further, even in the counter affidavit filed by the CBI, it is stated that the accused persons moved applications under section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for discharge and the same are pending for hearing and disposal and further the Madhao Merchantile Bank case is going on day to day basis before the Special CBI Court and in addition to the same, Sohrabuddin Fake Encounter case is also pending for trial before the same court. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ong 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. 19. In the light of what is stated above, the appellant is ordered to be released on bail on executing a bond with two solvent sureties, each in a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs to the satisfaction of the Special Judge, CBI, Ahmedabad on the following conditions : (i)the appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts to the court or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
