9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 928X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rruption Act, 1988 on 17.08.2011 against Y.S.Jagan Mohan Reddy (A-1) and V.Vijaya Sai Reddy (A2) the respondent herein. 3. The brief allegations go to show that A-1 has floated M/s.Jagati Publications Pvt. Ltd., on 14.11.2006 with an objective of conducting media business with the ill-gotten wealth and that M/s.Jagati Publications, as on 31.03.2010, had a paid up capital and share premium of Rs.844.129 crores invested by various shareholders and that while the promoters and their group of companies have subscribed to share capital at par, all other shareholders alleged to have subscribed to the shares at a uniform premium of Rs.350/- per share even before the company commenced its commercial operations. It is further alleged that M/s.Jagati Publications Pvt. Ltd., during the last two years, continued to receive investments from several companies at the same premium making the total investment as Rs.1246 crores though this venture alleged to have accumulated losses of Rs.349 crores. It is further alleged that as a quid-pro-quo to these investments, the benefits are received by various investors including the companies/individuals from the decisions of the State Government in allotme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for CBI submitted that the respondent was the founder director of M/s.Jagathi Publications Private Limited and he is the financial advisor for the group of companies of A-1 and that he played a key role in several transactions of this case. His main submission is that the respondent, in conspiracy with A-1, fixed the premium of M/s.Jagathi Publications Private Limited at high rates and provided false and exaggerated information to M/s.Delloitte Touche Tohmatsu India Pvt. Ltd., (for short, Delloitte ) and other companies. Sri Keshav Rao has also referred to the report of the Delloitte and correspondence between the respondent and Delloitte in support of this contention and submits that in their report, the Delloitte specifically mentioned that their report is only for the Board of M/s.Jagathi Publications Private Limited to define the basis for the negotiation and not for others. However, several companies and persons, who got benefits from the late father of A-1, invested huge amounts in the companies of A-1. Sri Keshava Rao also referred to the statements of some of the witnesses recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. which reveal the role played by the respondent in preparing the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed, but whereas in the case on hand, though three charge-sheets have been filed, but investigation is going on with reference to the other distinct offences. 11. Sri Keshava Rao further submitted that the respondent is the brain behind the offences and there is every possibility of the respondent tampering with the evidence. Reliance has been placed on CBI, Hyderabad Vs. Subramani Gopalakrishnan and another [(2011) 5 SCC 296] in support of his contention that in a similar case, the Apex Court, dismissed the bail application of an auditor (Satyam Case). The main submission of Sri Keshava Rao is that where in a case, bail has been granted without taking into consideration the seriousness of the offence and bail is granted on irrelevant considerations, such order is perverse and liable to be set aside and that the same does not amount to canceling the order of bail and that in the interest of justice, such orders have to be set aside. 12. In support of his contentions, Sri Keshava Rao had relied on the judgments in the case between Dinesh M.N. (S.P.) Vs. State of Gujarat [(2008) 5 SCC 66], State of Maharashtra Vs. Dhanendra Shriram Bhurle and others [(2009) 11 SCC 541] 13. Per contra, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cient. Sri Susheel Kumar further submitted that as and when CBI summoned the respondent, the respondent appeared before the CBI and there is no allegation by the CBI that the respondent had disobeyed the orders of the CBI. Learned senior counsel had referred to the dates on which the respondent was summoned by the CBI and further submitted that CBI interrogated the respondent for more than 300 hours on several dates. Learned senior counsel has referred to the judgment in the case between Chonampara Chellapan Vs. State of Kerala [(1979) 4 SCC 312] and several other decisions and submits that the considerations for granting bail are totally different from the considerations while seeking cancellation of bail. It is also his submission that in Sanjay Chandra s case (3 supra), the allegations were similar and it also pertains to the case of economic offence, but the Apex Court observed that seriousness of allegations alone is not a ground to reject bail. Sri Susheel Kumar further submitted that every accused shall be deemed to be innocent until the competent Court finds him guilty. Sri Susheel Kumar also submitted that there is no allegation against the respondent that he had any perso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fusing the bail. The general principles to be taken into consideration are (1) nature and gravity of the offence; (2) whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (3) severity of punishment in the event of conviction; (4) a reasonable apprehension of tampering with the evidence, threatening the witnesses; (5) chances of fleeing away from justice; and (6) character, means and behaviour of the accused. 17. The circumstances that may be taken into consideration while considering the application for cancellation of bail are; (1) nature and gravity of the crime; (2) misusing liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity; (3) interfering with the course of and hampering investigation; (4) attempt to tamper with the evidence, threatening or influencing the witnesses; and (5) attempt to flee away from justice. 18. Thus, the subsequent conduct of the accused becomes an important factor for canceling the bail. Where in a case, bail is granted on irrelevant considerations without considering the nature and gravity of the offence and the prima facie case against the accused, bail can be cancelled. 19. The judgments relied by Sri Keshav Rao in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CBI has filed three charge sheets pertaining to some distinct offences and it is still making investigation with regard to other distinct offences, the observation of the learned Special Judge as if CBI represented that the investigation has reached to a conclusion, appears to be incorrect. 26. However, can it be said to be totally irrelevant consideration? The fact remains that the CBI has filed first charge sheet on 31.03.2012 and other two charge sheets subsequently. It is a fact that the CBI has been making investigation with regard to other distinct offences that are alleged in the FIR. Since the CBI has filed three charge sheets, it appears that the observation of the learned Special Judge cannot be treated as totally irrelevant consideration, though may not be a true statement of facts. 27. The learned Special Judge has taken into consideration another circumstance, i.e., not arresting of A-1 and other beneficiaries by the Investigating agency. It is most unfortunate that this Court, in Crl. P. No.3712 of 2012, dated 20.04.2012, has categorically observed as not arresting of A-1 cannot be the sole circumstance to grant bail . Therefore, the learned Special Judge being a sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Judge has also taken into consideration the profession of the respondent and observed that the respondent is a famous Chartered Accountant and having good reputation in the society. The reputation of a person in his profession alone cannot be a circumstance to grant bail to an accused. Point No.4:- 30. As far as the issue of nature and gravity of offence and prima facie case is concerned, Sri Keshav Rao has placed reliance on the judgment in the case between Prakash Kadam and other s case (1 supra). The appellants therein were police men. It was alleged that they were engaged as contract killers by private persons to eliminate the deceased. In the circumstances, the Apex Court observed as follows:- In considering whether to cancel the bail the Court has also to consider the gravity and nature of the offence, prima facie case against the accused, the position and standing of the accused etc., If there are very serious allegations against the accused, his bail may be cancelled even if he has not misused the bail granted to him. The above principle applies when the same Court which granted bail is approached for cancelling the bail. 31. Thus, it is clear that considering the nature an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction (2) of Section 167 Cr.P.C. for failure to complete the investigation within the period prescribed thereunder be cancelled on the mere presentation of the challans (charge-sheet) at any time thereafter? Since in this case bail is not granted under sub-section (2) of Section 167, the above cited case appears to be not relevant. However, the principles laid down should be taken as guidance. 36. The Apex Court further referred to the case between Raghubir Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar {(1998) 4 SCC 481} and observed that bail granted under Section 437(1) or (2) or Section 439(1) can be cancelled under Section 437(5) or Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. 37. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment in the case between Dolat Ram and others Vs. State of Haryana [(1995) 1 SCC 349]. In that case, it was observed as follows. .bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial. 38. Learned counsel for the respondent had relied on the judgment in the case between Mehboob Daw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relevant circumstances, therefore on that ground, I feel that the bail granted to the respondent cannot be cancelled. 42. Though it is alleged by the CBI that the respondent was making inducement, threat and promise to the persons acquainted with the facts of this case and is dissuading them from disclosing the facts and causing the disappearance of the evidence and tampering with the evidence, but the CBI has not made any such specific allegations in the petition. Mere allegation is not sufficient. Mere apprehension that if the respondent is released on bail he may tamper the evidence is not sufficient. 43. For the present, CBI has not placed any record to show that the very presence of the respondent is the likelihood of creating any fear complex in the mind of witnesses. The cases of encounter specialists, or the persons who committed broad day light murders are different. Their very presence causes fear to the witnesses. Moreover, the apprehension of investigating agency must have some basis. The case of the respondent cannot be compared with those cases. 44. It is said that the respondent is working as a Chartered Accountant to several companies, and very intelligent. It is al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respondent never refused to appear before CBI. 48. In view of the above discussion and for the foregoing reasons, I feel that the following directions would meet the ends of justice:- I) As and when required for the purpose of investigation, i.e., to confront with any document or version of any accused or a witness, the CBI may summon the respondent. II) The respondent shall cooperate with the CBI in ascertaining the truth, subject to his legal right to maintain silence. III) If the respondent tries to influence any witness by threat, promise, inducement etc., the CBI may come forward with such material and seek cancellation of bail of the respondent. IV) If the respondent indulges in erasing or deleting data from computers or indulges in screening the evidence or actively assists with other accused in such activities or indulges in any other offence, the CBI is at liberty to approach this Court for cancellation of bail. V) The other conditions imposed by the Court below shall be followed. VI) This order does not come in the way of the CBI seeking cancellation of bail from the Special Court on the ground of nature and gravity of offence and prima facie case, the role played by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
