9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (5) TMI 938X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nvestigating Officer (IO) has not been able to point out even an iota of evidence in the testimony of the bank witnesses exhibiting that they were deceived by the inducement given by the accused persons. The IO has further not clarified, if, as per the statements given by the bank officials, the machines were working there then how and from where they were procured and if no machine was procured then how the bank officials given their report. Petitioner has been in judicial custody, after initial police custody of one week, for a period over 90 days and has already been charge sheeted. The petitioner is 76 years of age and admittedly is a chronic heart patient suffering from coronary heart disease since 1998. Also, nothing has been urged on behalf of the CBI to raise a reasonable apprehension that the petitioner will tamper with the prosecution evidence if he is released on bail. Further, nothing has been urged to suggest that the CBI has a reasonable apprehension that the petitioner will flee from justice if he is released on bail. From the material placed on record and the conduct of the petitioner in appearing before the CBI when summoned before his arrest, it is clear that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 468 and 478 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The petitioner was arrested by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on 19th February, 2010 and remained in police custody till 27th February, 2010. The petitioner has been in judicial custody thereafter and has been chargesheeted along with five other co-accused in a case of defrauding the Industrial Development Bank of India (IDBI). 2. Briefly stated the facts of the prosecution case are that the petitioner along with Sanjay Chaturvedi, Sumit Chaturvedi, Amit Chaturvedi, Praveen Juneja all of M/s Shamken Multifab Ltd (SML) and M/s Shamken Multifab Ltd and other unknown persons are parties to a criminal conspiracy during the year 2000-01 in the matter of obtaining Rupee Term Loan (RTL) of ₹ 15 crores from the IDBI by submitting false information and forged documents showing utilization of the loan proceeds of ₹ 15 crores and siphoning off all the funds, so received from the IDBI, for purposes other than the purpose for which the loan was sanctioned and thereby cheating the IDBI. The prosecution states that the above named accused persons in criminal conspiracy prepared a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ood supply to the specific heart areas thereby lowering the heart efficiency. Also, that the petitioner requires regular medical attention as his heart efficiency is merely 25 per cent and also that the petitioner has been advised that a device known as Intra Cardiac Defibrillator (ICD) needs to be inserted into the body of the petitioner. Furthermore, the petitioner is a high risk patient prone to sudden cardiac death due to ventricular fibrillation and the stress of custody is likely to impact his condition negatively. 7. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner then argued that the charge sheet has been filed and cognizance taken on 22nd May, 2010 and that the petitioner is, therefore, not required for any purpose. It was next argued on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 28th February, 2010 and has not been required by the CBI for any purpose and that the evidence has already been collected qua the petitioner. It was lastly urged that prior to the arrest of the petitioner amount had already been paid to the IDBI and that an scheme of arrangement under Section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956 has been filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... better position to look after his case and properly defend himself than if he were in custody. Hence grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception. (c) The object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. The principal rule to guide release on bail should be to secure the presence of the applicant to take judgment and serve sentence in the event of the Court punishing him with imprisonment. (d) Bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. Even assuming that the accused is prima facie guilty of a grave offence, bail cannot be refused in an indirect process of punishing the accused person before he is convicted. (e) Judges have to consider applications for bail keeping passions and prejudices out of their decisions. (f) In which case bail should be granted and in which case it should be refused is a matter of discretion subject only to the restrictions contained in Section 437(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. But the said discretion should be exercised judiciously. (g) The powers of the Court of Session or the High Court to grant bail under Section 439(1) of Criminal Procedure Code are very wide an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ations in fact relate to ensuring a fair trial of the case in a Court of justice and hence it is essential that due and proper weight should be bestowed on these two factors. (j) While exercising the power under Section 437 of the Criminal Procedure Code in cases involving non-bailable offences except cases relating to offences punishable with death or imprisonment for life, judicial discretion would always be exercised by the Court in favor of granting bail subject to sub-section 3 of Section 437 with regard to imposition of conditions, if necessary. Unless exceptional circumstances are brought to the notice of the Court which might defeat proper investigation and a fair trial, the Court will not decline to grant bail to a person who is not accused of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. (k) If investigation has not been completed and if the release of the accused on bail is likely to hamper the investigation, bail can be refused in order to ensure a proper and fair investigation. (l) If there are sufficient reasons to have a reasonable apprehension that the accused will flee from justice or will tamper with prosecution evidence he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sign with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the Community. A disregard for the interest of the Community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the Community in the system to administer justice in an even handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the National Economy and National Interest. In the said judgment the Single Bench also noticed the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suresh Chandra Ramanlal v. State of Gujarat, 2008 (7) SCC 591, wherein a case involving cheating and forgery in respect of funds of a bank, the Hon'ble Supreme Court even while grating bail on verified medical grounds, imposed a condition that he would deposit a sum of ₹ 40 lakhs with the bank in four monthly instalments. This was despite the fact that in the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there were as many as 49 accused and each one of them had already been enlarged on bail and that included the Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Managing Director, 11 other Directors of the bank and the case of the appellant, Ex. Vice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essman with roots in the Society. 12. Bail, it has been held in a catena of decisions, is not to be withheld as a punishment. Even assuming that the accused is prima facie guilty of a grave offence, bail cannot be refused in an indirect process of punishing the accused person before he is convicted. Furthermore, there is no justification for classifying offences into different categories such as economic offences and for refusing bail on the ground that the offence involved belongs to a particular category. It cannot, therefore, be said that bail should invariably be refused in cases involving serious economic offences. 13. The charge sheet in the present case has been filed and cognizance taken on 22nd May 2010 and the petitioner is, therefore, not required for any purpose. It is also seen that evidence has already been collected qua the petitioner and the CBI has not thought it appropriate to ask for custodial interrogation of the petitioner during the long period of 90 days when the petitioner was in judicial custody. One more consideration which weighs with the Court is that a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956 has been filed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
