9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 1223X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt, subject to the conditions imposed - Bail application allowed. - Bail Appln. 1946/2014 - - - Dated:- 5-9-2014 - Ms. Pratibha Rani, J. Mr.Kapil Sibal, Ms.Geeta Luthra, Mr.Dayan Krishnan, with Mr.Pramod Kr. Dubey, Mr.Pulkit Mishra, Mr.Rahul Tripathi and Ms.Megha, For The Petitioner. Mr.Sanjeev Bhandari, Standing Counsel for CBI. (ORAL) Crl.M.A.No.13617/2014 (Exemption) 1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. Application stands disposed of. Bail Appln.No.1946/2014 1. The Petitioner Lt.Gen.Tejinder Singh (Retd.) has been chargesheeted in RC No.AC-1(2012)A/0014/CBI, New Delhi for committing the offence punishable under Section 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. The case RC No.AC-1(2012)A/0014/CBI, New Delhi was registered on 19.10.2012 on the basis of complaint made by Gen.V.K.Singh (Retd.) in respect of the incident that allegedly took place in his office on 22.09.2010. 3. During investigation, the Petitioner was not arrested and while filing the chargesheet No.04 dated 15.07.2014 in RC No.AC-1(2012)A/0014/CBI, New Delhi, in column No.11(A)(xii) where date of arrest was required to be mentioned, it is shown as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ravi Rishi to Gen.V.K.Singh (Retd.), the then Chief of Army Staff (COAS), to clear the file for procurement of Tatra Vehicles by the first week of October. It is further submitted that chargesheet in this case was filed on 15.07.2014, cognizance was taken by learned Special Judge/CBI on 28.08.2014 and Petitioner was summoned as an accused by learned Special Judge/CBI for 01.09.2014. When the Petitioner appeared on 01.09.2014, the bail application moved by the Petitioner has been dismissed by learned Special Judge/CBI giving reasons for rejection. Thus, the order dated 01.09.2014 passed by leaned Special Judge/CBI is fair and in accordance with law suffering from no legal infirmities. It is also stated that the Petitioner being high rank Officer in prestigious Indian Army offered bribe to senior most Officer of Indian Army and in the given facts when there is sufficient material against the present Petitioner, his prayer for bail has been rightly rejected by learned Special Judge/CBI. Further the Petitioner has retired from a very senior rank from Indian Army and there is possibility of influencing the key witnesses especially those who had been his colleagues. It is further submitt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n in the matter and also that the then COAS did not give anything in writing to him. Learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner submitted that in this case, as per statement of Gen.V.K.Singh (Retd.), the then COAS, the conversation between him and the Petitioner was recorded and handed over to CBI but surprisingly, chargesheet in this regard gives different version. The version given by Gen.V.K.Singh (Retd.) in his statement regarding recording of conversation between him and the Petitioner and handing over to CBI, is as under : 'The conversation with Tejinder Singh during said meeting dt.22.9.2010 was recorded by me in a Digital Voice Recorder, which was handed over to you by me earlier. However, after recording the said conversation I did not play/hear it even once. I also did not check if the said digital voice recorder was in a working condition when I handed it to you. I will check if there is any other copy of the said conversation with me and provide you, if available.' However, in the chargesheet, in para 16.23, it is mentioned as under : '16.23 That during investigation, Gen.V.K.Singh had claimed to have recorded the alleged conversation between him and L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imagine that Gen.V.K.Singh could have fabricated such a story and there would definitely be some truth to what he had told me. Further, it is for him to explain as to why he did not choose to pursue the matter further at that time. ..................' 12. Referring to the statement of Mr.A.K.Antony, the then Defence Minister, Mr.Sanjeev Bhandari, learned Standing Counsel submitted that there is no force in the contention that statement of Gen.V.K.Singh (Retd.) has not been corroborated by other witness. 13. I have considered the rival contentions and carefully gone through the record. 14. On perusal of the chargesheet, the following facts emerge on record: (i) The Petitioner visited the office of the Complainant on 22.09.2010. (ii) As per version of the then Defence Minister about one year prior to his making statement in Parliament on this issue i.e. on 27.03.2012, Gen.V.K.Singh (Retd.) informed him about the incident. (iii) The then Defence Minister immediately asked COAS to take action but the COAS replied that he did not want to take any action. (iv) On other issues of corruption, while Gen.V.K.Singh (Retd.) had acted as per defence regulations, why ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... conditions. 17. It may be noted here that such type of arguments goes in favour as well against the parties as observed by this Court in R.Vasudevan v. CBI 166 (2010) DLT 583 wherein the contention made on behalf of CBI was that the Petitioner, being quite influential, is capable of influencing the witnesses and hence the bail should be denied. The Petitioner while relying on the judgment of Ravi Singhal vs. UOI Anr. 1993 JCC 306 submitted that the very fact that the petitioner is holding a very high status in the society or a high position in itself is a sure shot consideration to show that the Petitioner is not going to flee from the processes of law. While dealing with the above contentions, the following observation was made : '14. I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is holding a high position, or is influential, or is resourceful works as a double edged weapon which can cut both ways. The position, the status and the influence of an accused person can no doubt be a ground for denial of bail in a case where the apprehension expressed by the investigating agency is genuine and where there are sufficient prima facie reasons to believe that he would infl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... brought before the Court or forwarded in custody under Section 170 Cr.P.C., his bail application was dismissed and he was sent to Judicial Custody. The legality of the order dismissing his bail application was challenged before this Court by filing Crl.M.(M) No.2848/2003 and the Court has discussed various decisions of the Apex Court on the subject and laid down the following principles : '13. Now comes the question whether Learned Special Judge was justified in rejecting the bail application of the petitioner or not. 14. Supreme Court has laid down the guidelines for grant or refusal of bail under the provisions of Section 437 Cr.P.C in plethora of cases. Some of the significant cases need to be referred in brief. First of such cases is Gurcharan Singh and others v. State AIR 1978 SC 179. Guidelines provided by Supreme Court are as under :- Section 437 Cr.P.C provides as to when bail may be taken in case of non-bailable offences. Sub-sec (1) of S. 437 Cr.P.C makes a dichotomy in dealing with non-bailable offences. The first category relates to offences punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the rest are all other non-bailable offences. With regard to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fering lawful eclipse only in terms of `procedure established by law'. So deprivation of personal freedom, ephemeral or enduring, must be founded on the serious considerations, relevant to the welfare objectives of society, specified in the Constitution. 16. Again view of Supreme Court in Gudikanti Narasimhulu and others v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh 1978CriLJ502 is in unanimity with the aforesaid views wherein broad principles governing the grant or refusal of bail were laid down 17. In nutshell, the following principles emerge for grant or refusal of bail under Section 437 Cr.P.C:- (i) Bail should not be refused unless the crime charged is of the highest magnitude and the punishment of it assigned by law is of extreme severity; (ii) Bail should be refused when the court may reasonably presume, some evidence warranting that no amount of bail would secure the presence of the convict at the stage of judgment; (iii) Bail should be refused if the course of justice would be thwarted by the person who seeks the benignant jurisdiction of the Court to be freed for the time being; (iv) Bail should be refused if there is likelihood of the applican ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourts are contained in para 26 of the report, which are extracted as under : '26. Arrest of a person for less serious or such kinds of offence or offences those can be investigated without arrest by the police cannot be brooked by any civilized society. Directions for Criminal Courts : (i) Whenever officer-in-charge of police station or Investigating Agency like CBI files a charge-sheet without arresting the accused during investigation and does not produce the accused in custody as referred in Section 170, Cr.P.C. the Magistrate or the Court empowered to take cognizance or try the accused shall accept the charge-sheet forthwith and proceed according to the procedure laid down in Section 173, Cr.P.C. and exercise the options available to it as discussed in this judgment. In such a case the Magistrate or Court shall invariably issue a process of summons and not warrant of arrest. (ii) In case the Court or Magistrate exercises the discretion of issuing warrant of arrest at any stage including the stage while taking cognizance of the charge-sheet, he or it shall have to record the reasons in writing as contemplated under Section 87, Cr.P.C. that the accused has either ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nitude and the punishment of it prescribed by law is of extreme severity; (b) bail may be refused when the Court may reasonably presume, some evidence warranting that no amount of bail would secure the presence of the convict at the stage of judgment; (c) bail may be refused if the course of justice would be thwarted by the person who seeks the benignant jurisdiction of the Court to be freed for the time being; (d) bail may be refused if there is likelihood of the applicant interfering with witnesses for the prosecution or otherwise polluting the process of justice; and (e) bail may be refused if the antecedents of a man who is applying for bail show a bad record, particularly a record which suggests that he is likely to commit serious offences while on bail; (f) similarly, the Court shall not while releasing a person on bail put any condition, say in the form of deposit of extra amount or FDR etc. of any amount which is beyond the conditions permissible under Section 439, Cr.P.C.' 21. Reverting to the facts of the present case, at no stage, CBI expressed its apprehension that the Petitioner is abusing his position or exploiting his links with his ex-colleague ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red from this post and offered a bribe of ₹ 14 Crores to the then Army General should not be shown any mercy by the Court merely for the reason that investigation agency did not arrest him during the whole investigation. Not only there is statement of then General (Rt.) V.K.Singh but also there is recorded proceedings of Parliament of India where this issue was raised. Hence, no ground for bail to applicant Lt.General (Rt.) Tejinder Singh. His application is dismissed. ......................' 25. Since the reasons recorded by learned Special Judge, while dismissing the application of the Petitioner for grant of bail are against the settled legal principles laid down by this Court and Apex Court as discussed above, I am of the considered view that Petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail. 26. Accordingly, it is directed that Petitioner be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of ₹ 1 lac with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court, subject to the following conditions that : (i) the Petitioner shall not leave the country without the permission of the learned Trial Court. (ii) the Petitioner shall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
