IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl MC No. 3374 of 2006()
1. K.R. SASIDHARAN NAIR, GENERAL SECRETARY
... Petitioner
Vs
1. INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CENTRAL BUREAU
... Respondent
2. R. SUNDARESH SHENOY,
3. K.P. BALAGOPALAN,
4. R. VENKATASUBRAMANIA IYER @ RVS MONY,
5. J. NARAYANA MURTHY,
6. P.K. RAMDAS, S/O.D.A.KRISHNA WARRIER
7. CAPT.ALEXANDER FRANCIS,
8. K.P. SREENIVASAN, S/O.LATE K.K.PICHUMANY
9. N. KRISHNAN, S/O.T.S.NARAYANA SWAMY,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.A.CHANDRAN
For Respondent :SRI.S.SREEKUMAR, SC FOR CBI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :04/01/2007
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
----------------------
Crl.M.C.No.3374 of 2006
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of January 2007
O R D E R
The petitioner is the General secretary of FACT Employees
Federation. He is aggrieved by the grant of bail to Respondents
2 to 9 by the Special Judge-II, CBI, Ernakulam in Crime RC
No.13(A)/2004.
2. In respect of a contract, which was entered into by the
FACT in 1997, very serious allegations of corruption were raised.
According to the petitioner, the trade unions of employees had,
even at the time when the contract was entered into, entertained
reservations and raised objections against such contract being
entered into to the detriment of the interests of the
establishment. Long later, on 27/05/2004, the CBI had
registered a crime suo moto. Investigation continued and later
in September 2006, respondents 2 to 9 were arrested. They
were produced before the learned Special Judge. They were
enlarged on bail.
3. The petitioner complaints that the release on bail is
unjustified. The allegations are serious. At least till the
Crl.M.C.No.3374/06 2
investigation is completed, bail should not have been granted to
the accused/respondents, it is contended.
4. That application is opposed by the learned counsel for
the accused that is respondents 2 to 9. There is absolutely no
justification in the prayer made by the petitioner, a stranger for
cancellation of bail. By no stretch of imagination, can it be
contended that continued detention of the respondents is
necessary for any proper or effective investigation. They pray
that this petition may be dismissed.
5. The learned Standing Counsel for the CBI also
submits that the CBI does not want to raise any objections
against the grant of bail. The CBI does not endorse the request
for cancellation of bail. The alleged incident had taken place
long back in 1997 and it is after detailed enquiry that the crime
was registered on 27/5/2004. Thereafter, necessary
investigation was conducted and the CBI came to the conclusion
about the complicity of the respondents and effected arrest in
September 2006. For the purpose of investigation, their
continued detention is not necessary.
Crl.M.C.No.3374/06 3
6. The CBI has already completed the investigation and
has filed charge sheet also. In these circumstances, the CBI
does not agree with the request of the petitioner that bail
granted must be cancelled.
7. Having heard both the counsel and having considered
all the relevant inputs, I find absolutely no merit to invoke the
powers of this court for cancellation of bail. Investigation having
already been completed and the alleged incident having taken
place long earlier in 1997, I find no reasonableness in the
apprehension that a proper trial/adjudication will be impossible
if the respondents are allowed to remain in bail.
8. This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is in these
circumstances dismissed.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
jsr
Crl.M.C.No.3374/06 4
Crl.M.C.No.3374/06 5
R.BASANT, J
C.R.R.P.No.
ORDER
21ST DAY OF JULY 2006