9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 80X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vestigation/inquiry. [3] Heard Mr. Salman Khurshid, learned senior counsel, appearing along with Mr. N.Ibotombi Singh, learned senior counsel, for the petitioner; and Mr. S.Suresh, learned panel counsel for the Enforcement Directorate. [4] ECIR No.02/GWZO/2020 was registered by the Guwahati Zonal Office of the Enforcement Directorate (for short, 'ED') on 16.03.2020 basing on FIR No.5(3) 2018 dated 24.03.2018 on the file of the Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Police Station, Manipur. This FIR pertained to offences under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC along with Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. These alleged offences related to award of certain works by Loktak Development Authority, of which the petitioner was the Chairman at the relevant point of time. The award of these works was stated to have been done in violation of the prescribed norms resulting in wrongful financial loss to the Government and the exchequer. The fresh case was registered by the ED in 2020 on the ground that the information/documents pertaining to FIR No.5(3) 2018 dated 24.03.2018 indicated that the accused persons, including the petitioner, had generated and launder ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (supra), while granting bail, the Court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction would entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations. [8] Similar parameters would have to be kept in mind while considering an application for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in relation to offences under the Act of 2002. Notably, in P.Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement {(2019) 9 SCC 24}, a two Judge bench of the Supreme Court had observed that power under Section 438 Cr.P.C., being an extraordinary remedy, has to be exercised sparingly; and more so, in cases of economic offences as such offences stand apart as a different class inasmuch as they affect the economic fabric of the society. Per the Supreme Court, the privilege of pre-arrest bail should be granted only in exceptional cases and such discretion has to be properly exercised by the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is a matter of discretion and it is equally a matter of discretion, depending upon the facts and circumstances, for the Court to impose conditions. The Bench pointed out that an order of anticipatory bail would not, in any manner, limit or restrict the role and duty of the police or Investigating Agency to investigate into the charges against the person who sought pre-arrest bail and it would always be open to the police or Investigating Agency to move the Court, that granted pre-arrest bail, for arrest of the accused in the event of violation of any condition, including non-cooperation during investigation, evasion, intimidation of witnesses or offering inducement to witnesses with a view to influence the outcome of the investigation or trial, etc. [10] In the light of the aforestated legal scenario, certain pertinent facts in the case on hand require to be noted. The petitioner is a person of political stature, a former Chief Minister of the State and the present Leader of the Opposition. He has deep roots in society and there are no grounds to suspect that he would distance himself from the reach of the law. The events that formed the basis of the alleged offences date back t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ucial fact that the very registration of this case by the ED was on the strength of the information/documents in FIR No.5(3) 2018 dated 24.03.2018 and such documents have already been seized. In fact, in the order dated 26.08.2019 passed in the petitioner's AB No.11 of 2018, this Court noted that the entire evidence in the case would be based on documents and the same had already been seized and produced before the jurisdictional Court. It may also be noted that by 05.08.2019, the date of conclusion of the hearing of the petitioner's AB No.11 of 2018, 21 witnesses had already been examined in relation to FIR No.5(3) 2018 dated 24.03.2018 and the investigation of the case was proposed to be completed within three months. It was reported to the Court that the investigation of the case was going on full-swing. This Court therefore went on to observe that there was no chance of any tampering with the evidence. [12] At this stage, it would be premature and wholly inappropriate for this Court to go into the issue of the petitioner's guilt or otherwise vis-à-vis any wrongdoing in the award of the subject works in 2008-2009. It is for him to face the process of law that has been in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
