9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1848X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The bail application of Vikram Kothari is rejected at this stage and that of Rahul Kothari, is allowed. - BAIL No. – 2920, 3492 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 30-11-2018 - Attau Rahman Masoodi, J. For Applicant: Pranjal Krishna,Nandit Srivastava For Opposite Party : Amarjeet Singh Rakhra,Chandra Shekhar Sinha ORDER Attau Rahman Masoodi, J. These two bail applications were heard together on several dates and some significant orders were passed by this Court on 25.10.2018, 14.11.2018 and 20.11.2018. By order dated 25.10.2018, the Court directed for impleadment of the informant Bank of Baroda on whose behalf arguments were made by Sri Chandra Shekhar Sinha, learned counsel. The order passed on 14.11.2018 opened the hearing but for lack of understanding the issues dimensionally, the matter was posted on 20.11.2018. The following order was passed on 20.11.2018: The three dimensional question which this bail application involves is (a) personal liberty of the accused persons; (b) threat to the investigating agency at the hands of the accused persons to tamper with the evidence; and (c) retrieving the alleged loss caused to the Bank. In a writte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sheet in respect of an offence is to be filed, therefore, the detention of an accused person is unavoidable. In the present case, the charge sheet has already been filed, therefore, in a long duration of nine months the investigating agency ought to have done the needful and this period cannot be extended beyond what is reasonable. It is also to be noted that in a case where the charge sheet has been filed, the situation would be different and the obligation resting on the CBI would have to be weighed with rather a higher degree of sensitivity towards personal liberty of an accused which by its very nature is fundamental. At this juncture, Sri Raju hammers on the submission that in a case where charge sheet has been filed, there is hardly any scope for the investigation to canvass that there is any apprehension of tampering with the evidences by an accused person. All these aspects would be considered by the Court. List this matter on 27th of November, 2018 in terms of the order already passed. Learned counsel for the parties were heard at length on 27.11.2018 and 28.11.2018 and the following order was passed on 28.11.2018: Sri S.V. Raju learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s filed on 19.5.2018 under the same very sections. Supplementary charge sheet was also filed on 7.8.2018. Both the charge sheets mention of pendency of further investigation but not against the applicants. The relevant portion of the charge sheet in this regard may be extracted as under: That further investigation is pending against Smt. Sadhna Kothari, Directgor of M/s RGPL, FIR named accused in this case and also pending against Sri Brijesh Shankar Mishra, CFO of M/s RGPL, Sri Manoj Upadhyay, Senior Manager of M/s RGPL, Sri Shailesh Rawat, GM Banking and Finance of M/s RGPL, Sri Pawan Kumar Gupta, Assistant Accountant of M/s RGPL, Sri Umesh Kumar Verma, Accountant of M/s RGPL, Sri Krishan Narain Pandey, GM (Accounts Audit) of M/s RGPL, Sri N.K. Agarwal, AGM/Branch Head, Sri Ravindra Dalal, Credit Officer/Scale-II, Sri Dheeraj Agrawal, Assistant Manager (Operation Forex), Sri Radhey Shyam, Senior Manager/ Joint Manager, Smt. Ankita Srivastava, the then Scale-I Officer. Sri Sunando Bandopadhyay, Assistant Manager (Scale-I), Sri Dipesh Narain, Officer, Sri Anil Kumar Rakhit, Senior Manager/ Forex Incharge, Ms. Parul Nigam, Assistant Manager, Operation, Sri Keerthy Anjaneyul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tant disregard of the procedure established by law. The submission put forth by learned counsel for Rahul Kothari (Director) could not be successfully refuted by learned counsel for CBI or the Bank on any tangible ground except for the fact that the Company was joint family business and each Director having equal mens rea was vicariously liable for the commission of offence. This is a submission relevant at the time of trial but not at this stage when the Court is considering the case of Rahul Kothari for bail. Regard being had to the entirety of material placed on record, this Court would find that after filing of charge sheet against Rahul Kothari his further detention in jail would be nothing but a measure of punishment before holding trial. This in my humble view is not permissible looking to the scope of Article 21 of the Constitution of India hence a case for grant of bail is made out in favour of Rahul Kothari. Insofar as the co-accused Vikram Kothari, Managing Director of the Company is concerned, it has strongly been argued that even if it is assumed that there is a, prima facie, case against him yet after filing of the charge sheet, there is no justification for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 008) 3 Supreme Court Cases 753 5. S.K. Alagh versus State of U.P. and others (2008)5 Supreme Court Cases 662 6. Maksud Saiyed versus State of Gujarat and others (2008) 5 Supreme Court Cases 668 7. Dalip Kaur and others versus Jagnar Singh and another (2009) 14 Supreme Court Cases 696 8. Ratiram and others versus State of Madhya Pradesh (2012) 4 Supreme Court Cases 516 9. Sunil Bharti Mittal versus Central Bureau of Investigation (2015) 4 Supreme Court Cases 10 Rajendra Prakash Agrawal versus Union of India and another (2015) 15 Supreme Court Cases 233 11 Dataram Singh versus State of U.P. and another (2018) 3 Supreme Court Cases 22 Learned counsel for CBI also cited the following judgements: Sl. Particulars Citation 1. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the investigating agency insofar as the grant of bail to Rahul Kothari is concerned. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the bail application of Vikram Kothari is rejected at this stage and that of Rahul Kothari, is allowed. Let Rahul Kothari involved in involved crime no. RC/BD1/2018/E/0001 under Section 120-B IPC read with Section 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and Section 13 read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 1988, Police Station CBI/BS FC/New Delhi, District Kanpur/Delhi, be released on bail on his furnishing a bail bond and two heavy and reliable sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions. (i) The applicant shall surrender his passport before the trial court immediately on his release. (ii) The applicant shall give due intimation to the court concerned about any movement within the country with specific time schedule. (iii) The applicant shall file undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
