9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 1155X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act. After taking the said case on file on 30.05.2012 the lower Court issued P.T. warrant against A-1 for his production on 11.06.2012. All these three charge sheets were filed by Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.) in RC. No. 19(A)/2011-CBI/HYD. In the said crime, the petitioner was arrested on 27.05.2012 and was produced before the lower Court on 28.05.2012, on which date the lower Court sent him to judicial custody. When the lower Court refused to send the petitioner to C.B.I. custody for interrogation, C.B.I. approached this Court and this Court by order dated 02.06.2012 permitted the investigating agency to have custody of the petitioner for interrogation for 5 days initially and thereafter for another two days. As on today, the petitioner is in judicial custody. He seeks bail under Sections 437 and 439 Cr.P.C. herein. The petitioner/A-1 is an elected Member of Parliament (Lok Sabha) from Kadapa Constituency of the State. He is also heading a regional party in the State under the name of Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party. It is brought to the notice of this Court that in the recent by-elections held for 18 assembly constituencies, his party candidates won 15 seats an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a) allotment of Ac.150.00 of land to M/s. Aurobindo Group and M/s. Hetero Group of companies by Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (APIIC) at Special Economic Zone (SEZ) Jedcherla. (b) Transfer of Ac.30.33 cents of land from M/s. Aurobindo Pharma Limited to M/s. Trident Life Sciences Limited by APIIC at Export Promotion Industrial Park (EPIP), Pashamylaram, Medak District.(c) Quid-pro-quo investments made by M/s. Aurobindo Group and M/s. Hetero Group of companies and individuals in A-1's companies for allocation of lands in SEZ, Jedcherla and EPIP, Pashamylaram. Charge sheets in C.C. Nos. 9 and 10 of 2012 relate to the alleged corporate fraud of Jagati Publications Private Limited, practised on individual investors and obtaining anti-dated valuation report of Jagati Publications with exaggerated value of the company and its creditworthiness by furnishing false information and projections, from M/s. Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu India Private Limited. The said charge sheet also alleges inflation of Jagati Publication value and fixing premium of ₹ 350/- per share of ₹ 10/-. They also relate to quid-pro-quo benefits received by A-1's companies for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e station that there is sufficient evidence or reasonable ground as aforesaid, such officer shall forward the accused under custody to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence upon a police report and to try the accused or commit him for trial, or, if the offence is bailable and the accused is able to give security, shall take security from him for his appearance before such Magistrate on a day fixed and for his attendance from day to day before such Magistrate until otherwise directed. The above provision contemplates forwarding the accused under custody to the Court empowered to take cognizance of the offence upon a police report. Without following the procedure prescribed by Section 170(1) Cr.P.C., the lower Court should not have received final report/charge sheet and should not have taken cognizance of the offences mentioned therein. Instead, the lower Court took cognizance of the offences mentioned in the charge sheet against the petitioner/A-1 and issued summons to him. Be that as it may, timing of arrest of the petitioner on 27.05.2012 after by-election process commenced and during the course of election campaign, certainly sent wrong signals to the publi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ces, which price represented the alleged Quid-pro-quo for the benefits those investors obtained from the State Government and State Government undertakings/Corporations during the period of office of A.1's father late Y.S. Rajasekhar Reddy as Chief Minister of this State. It is contended by the Special Senior Standing Counsel for C.B.I. that A.1 had amassed wealth to the tune of at least ₹ 43,000 crores by adopting the said modus operandi. He contended that there are several other major aspects of the case which are under investigation. He give some of the said aspects which are under investigation as 1) Vanpic land deal, 2) Investment of a French Company in Bharathi Cements in which A.1's wife is the Managing Director, 3) Transactions of several Suit-case Companies from Kolkata, 4) Sandur Power Transactions and 5) Supply of water to ACC Cements of Srinivasan etc. Therefore, it is not as if investigation in this crime came to an end either by filing the 1st charge sheet or by filing charge sheet Nos. 2 and 3. According to the Investigating Agency, major portion of investigation of the case is yet to be completed. But, C.B.I. could not make out any grounds for not arr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icer:-1) The police officer may, in all cases where the arrest of a person is not required under the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 41, issue a notice directing the person against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed a cognizable offence, to appear before him or at such other place as may be specified in the notice (2) Where such a notice is issued to any person, it shall be the duty of that person to comply with the terms of the notice. (3) Where such person complies and continues to comply with the notice, he shall not be arrested in respect of the offence referred to in the notice unless, for reasons to be recorded, the police officer is of the opinion that he ought to be arrested. (4) Where such person, at any time, fails to comply with the terms of the notice, it shall be lawful for the police officer to arrest him for the offence mentioned in the notice, subject to such orders as may have been passed in this behalf by a competent Court. Initially notice thereunder is issued by the Police Officer where arrest of the person is not required under S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f arrest of the accused. W.P.No. 16128 of 2012 was filed challenging arrest of the accused on 27.05.2012. The said writ petition was filed by A.1's wife on behalf of A.1, as A.1 was in judicial custody by then. At best, it can be said that the said common order relating to W.P.No. 16128 of 2012 has not become final, as time for filing Writ Appeal against that order is still available. Therefore, it may not be open for the petitioner to again question legality of his arrest on 27.05.2012 in this bail petition. In any event, grant or rejection of bail to an accused person either under Section 437 or under Section 439 Cr.P.C. will not depend on legality or otherwise of arrest of that accused person. 11. No doubt this case in which C.B.I. filed three charge sheets and is making investigation into several other individual items of the case, involves economic offences of large magnitude. According to the Senior Special Counsel for C.B.I., the subject matter pertains to the total volume of ₹ 43,000 crores of rupees amassed by the petitioner using his late father's official position as Chief Minister of the State of Andhra Pradesh. I agree with senior counsel for the petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld be taken into account whether there is any possibility or likelihood of the petitioner interfering with evidence or witnesses or investigation in case he is granted bail. He doubt, C.B.I. recorded statement of Eram Reddy Suryanarayana Reddy @ Sureedu during investigation; but the same witness refused to give statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate on the same aspects in spite of he allegedly promising the investigating agency to give such statement before the Magistrate. After issue of summons by the Magistrate initially to the said witness for his appearance on 27.04.2012, the said date was postponed to 17.05.2012 and to 19.05.2012. But C.B.I. could not serve summons on him. Finally C.B.I. filed memo before the Magistrate on 31.05.2012 reporting that summons could not be served on the said witness Sureedu as he refused to receive the same stating that he is not in a position to give his statement before the Court. It is pointed out that the memo dated 30.05.2012 filed by C.B.I. into Court is not relevant herein as by then the petitioner was already arrested on 27.05.2012. Summons for appearance of the witness by name Sureedu was taken by C.B.I. for service on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d whether he has a bad record particularly a record which suggests that he is likely to commit serious offences while on bail. In regard to habituals it is part of criminological history that a thoughtless bail order has enabled the bailee to exploit the opportunity to inflict further crimes on the members of society. Bail discretion, on the basis of evidence about the criminal record of a defendant, is therefore not an exercise in irrelevance. At the same time, the Supreme Court further observed therein as follows: Reasonableness postulates intelligent care and predicates that deprivation of freedom by refusal of bail is not for punitive purpose but for the bi-focal interests of justice to the individual involved and society affected. All deprivation of liberty is validated by social defence and individual correction along an anti-criminal direction. Public justice is central to the whole scheme of bail law. Fleeing justice must be forbidden but punitive harshness should be minimised. 14. If this case is viewed in bifocal manner, this Court is of the opinion that individual right of the petitioner for bail cannot have precedence over larger interests of the societ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
