Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/10466/2010 27/ 27 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 10466 of 2010
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA
==========================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To be
referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
==========================================
AJAY
HARIBHAI PATEL - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
==========================================
Appearance
:
MR JM PANCHAL with MR KB
ANANDJIWALA for Applicant(s) : 1,
MR PK JANI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR YN RAVANI for Respondent(s) :
2,
==========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA
Date
: 21/09/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
The
present application has been filed by the applicant-original accused
No. 17 for grant of anticipatory bail under sec. 438 of Criminal
Procedure Code in connection with CBI Case No. RCBS1/2010/S0004-MUM
registered with C.B.I., Mumbai for the alleged offences under
sections 120(B), 364, 365, 368, 341, 342, 302, 384 and 201 of IPC.
2. Learned
Counsel Mr. JM Panchal appearing with learned counsel Mr. Anandjiwala
submitted that he would adopt the submissions canvassed by learned
Sr. Counsel Mr. Uday Lalit for the applicant in Criminal Misc.
Application No. 10365 of 2010.
3. Learned
Counsel Mr. Panchal, however, submitted that the first aspect he
would refer to is the unfairness of the investigating agency inasmuch
as he was served with the summons on 18.6.2010 and he went to the CBI
office at Mumbai where he was interrogated. Learned Counsel Mr.
Panchal submitted that there is no summons and he had gone to USA on
29.6.2010 and returned on 9.8.2010. In the meanwhile, the charge
sheet was filed on 26.7.2010 and also the warrant came to be issued
under sec. 70. Learned Counsel Mr. Panchal referred to the papers and
an application made before the Court of Magistrate for issuance of
non-bailable warrant and submitted that it was mere ipse dixit
without any material to show that the petitioner has avoided or
absconded.
4. Learned
Counsel Mr. Panchal referred to the two reports and submitted that as
required under the law, the summons has to be served. If it was not
served, some intimation/endorsement could have been taken from the
family members for the intimation or it could have been served by
affixing. No such procedure has been followed and straightway the
warrant came to be issued and thereafter it is sought to be argued
that warrant has been issued under sec. 70. He further emphasised
that the present applicant accused is also sought to be arraigned for
the conspiracy or the main conspiracy regarding the incident of fake
encounter which has taken place in 2005 and he is sought to be
arraigned in such conspiracy in 2010 without any supporting material
or evidence.
5. Learned
Counsel Mr. Panchal submitted that a person could be involved in the
conspiracy or accused of involvement in the conspiracy before or
during the conspiracy or immediately thereafter, but there is no
material or evidence to suggest about any kind of participation or
involvement of the accused with the said incident or the so-called
main conspiracy except the fact that the applicant accused, like the
other co-accused, is said to have persuaded the witnesses to conceal
from the CBI. Learned Counsel Mr. Panchal submitted that in fact he
cannot be said to have influenced or persuaded inasmuch as there is
no threat or temptation. He has only talked or discussed about the
matter when the witnesses admittedly have talked to the accused in
connection with their own pending cases with regard to the huge
outstanding dues of the bank.
6. Learned
Counsel Mr. Panchal also submitted that the statements of the two
witnesses, Ramanbhai Patel and Dashratbhai Patel, recorded under sec.
161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. even if accepted at the face value as it is
and taking the case of CBI at the face value, will not suggest any
involvement or participation of the accused in the conspiracy except
meeting the witnesses and that too for talk for settlement of the
pending cases against the witnesses. He emhasised and submitted
with regard to the background of the witnesses that there were PASA
as well as other cases including huge amounts of the bank itself
which have been defaulted for which, on the contrary, the applicant
was approached.
7. Learned
Counsel Mr. Panchal, therefore, referred to the statements of the
witnesses and submitted that, in fact, even the offence under sec.
201 of IPC would not be attracted and at the most it could be an
offence under sec. 177 for giving false information to the public
servant.
8. Learned
Counsel Mr. Panchal, therefore, submitted that while considering the
alleged involvement or participation in the main conspiracy, the
court may also consider the time-lag as the incidence of fake
encounter has taken place in 2005 and till 2010 the present applicant
has not been even interrogated. There is nothing, not even a whisper
by anybody, with regard to his involvement, and only in the year 2010
two witnesses, as stated above, when they met, there was a talk where
the present applicant accused is said to have persuaded the witnesses
to conceal from the CBI.
9. For
that matter, again, Learned Counsel Mr. Panchal referred to the
statements and referring to the statement of Ramanbhai Patel dated
27.3.2010 produced at page 89 (165) submitted that if it is closely
considered, what the applicant has told is that he would not have
interfered in the matter but since Jayeshbhai is father-in-law of my
niece and he is a good friend of his, hence he had intervened in this
matter. Learned counsel Mr. Panchal referred to the earlier part also
to emphasise that what has been discussed is about the banking
business matters and thereafter talk about Sohrabuddin and CBI was
made where the applicant is said to have informed the witnesses that
CBI would call them and they may be used by CBI for implicating
others. Learned counsel Mr. Panchal therefore submitted that at the
most it could be said to be his talk on this subject and asking or
advising not to get involved in CBI matters which may lead to
implicating others. He therefore submitted that the applicant is
falsely implicated.
10. Learned
counsel Mr. Panchal also submitted that except Para 38 the one line
accusation which has been emphasized by learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Lalit
in another matter, there is nothing to show the involvement or
participation, much less any active participation by the applicant
accused in the main conspiracy. Learned counsel Mr. Panchal
therefore strenuously submitted that on one hand the charge sheet is
filed with an accusation with regard to the involvement and the
participation in the main conspiracy for which there is no material
found in the entire charge sheet and on the other, while arguing this
application, submissions are made that investigation is pending, only
with a view to implicate the accused without any basis or foundation.
Learned counsel Mr. Panchal submitted that even if the case of the
prosecution-CBI is accepted at the face value in light of the two
statements and the transcript of the video recording made, at the
most it could be an offence under sec. 201 or sec. 177 and as the
offence under sec. 201 is a bailable offence, they are sought to be
roped in by connecting them for the so-called involvement in the main
conspiracy after five years without any justification or material.
11. Learned
counsel Mr. Panchal submitted that the offence with regard to the
role attributed even in the charge sheet by the CBI referring to
another Para 42 is for offence under sec 201 which is a bailable
offence. The court below has therefore not considered the role or
the evidence and therefore the present application has been filed
which may be considered accepting the case of the prosecution at the
face value.
12. Learned
counsel Mr. Panchal further emphasized that the credibility of the
two witnesses, on the basis of which the applicant is implicated, is
also required to be considered that apart from their own default in
huge amount of loan and other cases, even in this case they have in
their statements clearly stated as to the amount which has been paid
on a particular date. The witnesses have also stated that they are
builders and they would maintain kachha note meaning thereby they are
very particular about it and this itself is totally false as it could
be proved by documentary evidence that the present applicant accused
was abroad at that time for which the passport is also produced on
record, meaning thereby that he was not present in India at all and
therefore how there could be any payment of the amount by the
witnesses. Therefore, learned counsel Mr. Panchal submitted that this
application may be allowed.
13. Mr.
Y.N. Ravani, learned counsel appearing for the CBI-the investigating
agency, submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court has handed over
the investigation to the CBI vide order dated 10.1.2010 and he
referred to the directions, which have been referred to in the order
passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, that a larger conspiracy is
required to be investigated and extension has also been granted.
Learned counsel Mr. Ravani submitted that, therefore, considering the
limited scope of exercise of discretion under sec. 438 of CrPC, the
court may not entertain this application when the investigation is in
progress.
14. Learned
Counsel Mr. Ravani for the CBI, emphasized, referring to the
provisions of sec. 438, that the word ‘accusation’ is
required to be considered and it is different from sec. 439 and
submitted that the court has to consider only the accusation at this
stage and prima face case is not to be examined. He has, referring
to the statements of other witnesses including of one Noor Mohamed
Goghari and Mahendrasinh Zala. emphasized that there is involvement
of the applicant accused and therefore the present application may
not be entertained.
15.
Learned counsel Mr. Ravani referred to the charge sheet and submitted
that the two witnesses, Ramanbhai Patel and Dashratbhai Patel, had a
meeting with the applicant which is recorded. He referred to the
three meetings dated 29.3.2010, 10.4.2010 and 3.3.2010. Learned
counsel Mr. Ravani also submitted that the extortion racket in
connivance with the police and politicians is a matter of
investigation and this extortion was from the marble traders which is
required to be investigated. He has also stated that the
investigation is going on.
Learned Counsel Mr. Ravani submitted that though the incident of
fake encounter and the extortion may relate back to 2005, the charges
are also for offence under sec. 120B (conspiracy) and therefore the
court may not entertain the present application for anticipatory
bail.
16. Learned
counsel Mr. Ravani also referred to the provisions of sec. 438 and
strenuously submitted that the word used is “accusation”
and submitted that the court has to only consider the ‘accusation’
levelled against the applicant-accused and no further material is
required to be considered. He also submitted that the statement of
both the witnesses, Ramanbhai Patel and Dashratbhai Patel, have been
recorded and there is a transcript as to what transpired in the
meeting, which would suggest the involvement of the applicant prima
facie and therefore the application may not be entertained.
17. Learned
counsel Mr. Ravani also referred to the judgments of the Hon’ble
Apex Court to emphasise about the exercise of discretion with care
and circumspection. He has referred to and relied upon the judgment
reported in (1997) 7 SCC 187 in the case of State (represented by
the CBI) v. Anil Sharma and referred to the observations made in
Para 4 and 6. He submitted that it has also been observed that
“effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous
advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials
which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would
elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and
insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is
interrogated.”
18. Learned
Counsel Mr. Ravani also referred to and relied upon the judgment
reported in 2001(4) SC 224 in the case of State of Maharashtra v.
Ritesh s/o Vasudeo Wanjari.
19. Similarly,
he has also referred to and relied upon the judgment reported in
(2005) 4 SCC 303 in the case of Adri Dharan Das v. State of W.B.
and submitted that the power is extra-ordinary and has to be
exercised only in limited cases.
20. Learned
counsel Mr. Ravani also referred to and relied upon the judgment in
the case of State of Gujarat v. Narendra K. Amin, reported in
(2008) 13 SCC 594, and submitted that it is a matter of one officer
involved in fake encounter where the observations have been made for
exercise of discretion under sec. 438 and he emphasized that there
also it was considered with regard to the aspect of custodial
interrogation which is required to be considered.
21. Learned
counsel Mr. Ravani submitted that an attempt is made to bifurcate the
role on the ground that the applicant could not be part of the main
conspiracy in the incident of fake encounter committed in 2005 which
may not be considered at this stage. Learned counsel Mr. Ravani
therefore submitted that at this stage only the nature of accusation
may be considered and the discretion under sec. 438 may not be
exercised in favour of the applicant. He also submitted that when
the allegations are for conspiracy under sec. 120B, the individual
role may not be considered and he has also referred to the orders
refusing bail by the court earlier for the other accused. He,
therefore, submitted that the present application may be rejected.
22. In
rejoinder, learned Counsel Mr. Panchal adopted the same submissions
made by learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Lalit in Criminal Misc Application
No. 10365 of 2010 to focus on the contradictory stand adopted by CBI
only with a view to implicate the applicant-accused. Learned counsel
Mr. Panchal submitted that reading the statement of the two witnesses
Ramanbhai Patel and Dashratbhai Patel both under sec. 161 and 164 and
also the transcript, the court has to consider whether it suggests
even a prima facie case regarding the involvement for the so-called
main conspiracy.
23. Again,
learned counsel Mr. Panchal referred to the material and evidence and
submitted that when the investigation is in progress on the one hand
to resist the present application and on the other hand submitting
the charge sheet with accusation for the involvement in the main
conspiracy without any material is required to be considered. He
emphasized and submitted that the main conspiracy or the incident of
fake encounter has taken place in 2005. The applicant has been
interrogated in 2010 and even in the charge sheet submitted by the
CBI what has been relied upon are the statements of the two
witnesses, the transcript and taking it as it is, it cannot be said
that the applicant is involved in the main conspiracy as alleged.
24. Learned
counsel Mr. Panchal submitted that when it is stated that further
investigation is pending it is also stated that as the investigation
is pending all material is not placed before the court which also
suggest the unfairness to oppose the present application inasmuch as,
as it could be revealed from the charge sheet qua the present
applicant, suggesting the role for offence under sec. 201 only at
best. He, therefore, submitted that as the offence under sec. 201 is
a bailable offence, there is no question of any custodial
interrogation being granted and it is only with a view to implicate
the applicant accused he is sought to be implicated for the main
conspiracy without any supporting material.
25. Learned
counsel Mr. Panchal submitted that there is no inculpatory statement
of the applicant involving him in the main conspiracy and even the
statement of the two witnesses do not suggest about any role or
involvement as, for the purpose of conspiracy, there has to be a
prior meeting of mind. Learned counsel Mr. Panchal submitted that
meeting of mind is essential even though there may not be a direct
evidence, but the entire circumstances have to be considered and,
therefore, the court may consider the material which is placed on
record as to whether the applicant accused can be said to have been
involved in the main conspiracy even prima facie on the basis of the
material. He emphasized and submitted that a reference has even been
made to the larger conspiracy, extortion and the fake encounter.
There is no reference to any such evidence in the charge sheet so far
as the present applicant accused is concerned and therefore the
present application may be allowed, particularly when the offence
under sec. 201 is bailable and the accused has a right to be released
on bail.
26. In
support of this submission, learned counsel Mr. Panchal has referred
to and relied upon the judgment reported in the case of Rasiklal
v. Kishore s/o Khanchand Wadhwani, reported (2009) 4 SCC 446
wherein it has been observed that “The right to claim bail
granted by Section 436 of the Code in a bailable offence is an
absolute and indefeasible right. In bailable offences there is no
question of discertion in granting bail as the words of Section 436
are imperative.”
27. In
view of rival submissions, it is required to be considered whether
the present application can be entertained or not.
28. Though
the Court is not required to discuss in detail at this stage the
various aspects while deciding the present application since
submissions have been made at length as recorded hereinabove, some of
the relevant aspects are required to be focused. The court is
conscious of the fact that that further investigation has been handed
over to the CBI in view of directions of the Hon’ble apex Court
in January 2010.
29. It
is well settled by catena of judicial pronouncements that the
discretion under sec. 438 of CrPC has to be exercised with care and
circumspection. Though much emphasis has been made by learned
counsel Mr. Ravani for the CBI on this aspect, particularly referring
to the provisions of sec. 438 that the words used are “when any
person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an
accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence” and
emphasis on ‘accusation’ is required to be considered.
30. As
it is revealed from the papers including the charge sheet submitted
by the CBI, the applicant has been shown as an accused. Further,
there is a distinction between the suspect and the accused. It is
also required to be considered in light of the submissions canvassed
referring to the charge sheet as well as the statement of the
witnesses and even the transcript that the court is only required to
consider mere accusation made or whether the court has also to
consider the material suggesting the prima facie involvement.
Therefore, the submission made by learned counsel Mr. Ravani that
only the nature of accusation has to be seen, and not even the prima
facie case or the material, is misconceived and cannot be accepted.
31. It
is required to be noted that even while considering the exercise of
powers under the preventive detention laws, when such powers are
conferred in public interest, a judicial scrutiny is permitted to
examine whether it satisfies the test of “subjective
satisfaction based on objective material.”
32. Therefore,
while considering the present application, the court is required to
consider the well accepted guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble
apex Court in catena of judicial pronouncements. The Hon’ble
Apex Court in a judgment in reported in (1980) 2 SCC 565 in the case
of Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibia and ors. V. State of Punjab has
considered at length the legislative intent and the scope of exercise
of such discretion and the restraint on such discretion and it has
considered the judgment of the Full Bench of the Punjab & Haryana
High Court referring to the various factors for exercise of such
discretion as well as the provisions of sec. 438 of CrPC. It has
been observed specifically in Para 15 and again in Para 26 :
“We
find a great deal of substance in Mr. Tarkunde’s submission that
since denial of bail amounts to deprivation of personal liberty, the
court should lean against the imposition of unnecessary restrictions
on the scope of Section 438, especially when no such restrictions
have been imposed by the legislature in the terms of that section.
Section 438 is a procedural provision which is concerned with the
personal liberty of the individual, who is entitled to the benefit of
the presumption of innocence since he is not, on the date of his
application for anticipatory bail, convicted of the offence in
respect of which he seeks bail. An over generous infusion of
constraints and conditions which are not to be found in Section 438
can make its provisions constitutionally vulnerable since the right
to personal freedom cannot be made to depend on compliance with
unreasonable restrictions. The beneficent provision contained in
Section 438 must be saved, not jettisoned. No doubt can linger after
the decision in Maneka Gandhi, that in order to meet the challenge of
Article 21 of the Constitution, the procedure established by law for
depriving a person of his liberty must be fair, just and reasonable.”
33. Further,
it has been laid down in this very judgment that such a discretion
has to be exercised on careful consideration of the facts and
material as it is a “device to secure individual’s
liberty; it is neither a passport to the commission of crimes nor a
shield against any and all kinds of accusations.” It has also
been observed that no hard and fast rule and no inflexible principle
governing the exercise of discretion can be laid down as it will
depend upon the facts and circumstances.
34. Therefore,
a balance has to be maintained between the rival claims of the
accused as well as the investigating agency depending upon the facts
and circumstances and the material suggesting prima face case.
35. The
same view has been reiterated from time to time in various judgments
including the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Pravinbhai Kashirambhai Patel v. State of Gujarat and ors.,
reported in (2010) 7 SCC 598 . Considering the same judgment as well
as the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2005) 8
SCC 21 in the case of State of U.P. Through CBI v/ Amarmani
Tripathi as well as the judgment cited by learned counsel Mr.
Ravani, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that “except
for indicating the broad outlines for grant of bail and/or
anticipatory bail, no straitjacket formula can be prescribed for
universal application, as each case for grant of bail has to be
considered on its own merits and in the facts and nuances of each
case.”
36. It
is in this background, therefore, the facts of the present case are
required to be considered in light of the rival submissions made at
length.
37. Without
much elaboration on this aspect, the following aspects are required
to be noted that further investigation has been ordered to be carried
out in view of the directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court to the
CBI. The applicant accused has been interrogated in 2010. The charge
sheet has been filed and Para 37, 38, 42, 46 & 48 are relevant
and in Para 38 of the charge sheet, as rightly emphasized by learned
Counsel Mr. Panchal, there is one line accusing the applicant of
involvement in the main conspiracy, whereas Para 46 refers
specifically to the charge of tampering with the evidence and for
offence under sec. 201 of IPC.
38. It
is in light of this the submissions have been canvassed that even if
the accusation made by the prosecuting agency, CBI, is accepted at
the face value and the statements of the two witnesses along with the
transcript is read as it is, at best it would attribute the applicant
with the role and offence under sec. 201 of IPC and there is no
evidence to connect or suggest the involvement of the applicant
accused for conspiracy.
39. Therefore,
when the charge sheet has been filed accusing the applicant accused
for involvement and active participation in the main conspiracy and
the incident of fake encounter or the extortion, no material has been
placed except this. Even if the submission made by learned counsel
Mr. Ravani referring to the statements and the transcript are
accepted, it refers to the meeting which prima facie suggests about
the talk for settlement of the cases of the two witnesses about the
default in repayment of the huge loan amount and PASA. Moreover, it
will not be advisable to discuss the statement and the transcript at
this stage and therefore only for considering the prima facie case
for deciding the alleged persuasion of the witnesses for concealment
of the facts to the CBI in course of the talk by the present
applicant has to be considered.
40. Therefore,
without any further elaboration, the aspect which is required to be
considered is with regard to charge of conspiracy and also the prima
facie case suggesting involvement of the applicant accused in a
larger or the main conspiracy and active participation. The
material, as discussed above, in the opinion of this court, do not
support the submissions made by learned counsel Mr. Ravani for the
CBI. The accusation may be serious, but there has to be a prima
facie case suggesting the involvement, which, as discussed above,
cannot be said to have been substantiated prima facie.
41. Further,
the law as regards conspiracy for offence under sec. 120B is well
settled with regard to the meeting of mind and even if the person may
not be present or may not be involved, it could be at any stage prior
to the incident, at the time of the incident or immediately
thereafter. However, even considering these principles with regard to
the aspect of conspiracy, it is not required to be discussed in
detail at this stage. It would be sufficient to observe that when the
person is accused in the charge sheet about active participation, it
has to be substantiated by some material suggesting the prima facie
involvement. On the other hand, it is argued that the investigation
is in progress, which itself reflects out the manner of
investigation.
42. The
observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a judgment
reported in (2005) 11 SCC 600 in the case of State (NCT of Delhi)
v. Navjot SANDHU alias AFSAN GURU on the aspect of the genesis of
the crime and the complicity of the accused is required to be
considered and for complicity of the accused in the conspiracy, the
prima facie material suggesting the involvement is required to be
considered.
43. Further,
this aspect is also required to be considered in light of the fact
that if the applicant is charged or suggested prima facie involvement
for offence under sec. 201, which is a bailable offence, the same is
required to be considered in light of the judgment of the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of Rasiklal v. Kishore s/o Khanchand
Wadhwani (supra), wherein it
has been observed,
“The
right to claim bail granted by Section 436 of the Code in a bailable
offence is an absolute and indefeasible right. In bailable offences
there is no question of discretion in granting bail as the words of
Section 436 are imperative.”
44. It
is also required to be mentioned that one of the relevant
considerations is the character of evidence which is required to be
appreciated, particularly when the two witnesses are alleged to have
been involved in many cases and they have themselves stated regarding
settlement of the cases as it is revealed from their statements.
45. One
more aspect is required to be considered with regard to the process
and warrant under sec. 70. It may be noted that admittedly before
the issuance of warrant, no summons has been served, no intimation
has been given and any endorsement for any such attempt to serve the
summons or intimation to the accused persons at their residence or
office is not there.
46. The
applicant is said to have accepted the money for which details are
stated with dates and as emphasized by the learned counsel for the
applicant he was abroad when the payment is stated to have been made
by the witnesses. These witnesses have also stated that they have
made kachha note with dates whereas admittedly the applicant was
abroad for which the passport is also submitted to the CBI.
Therefore, it has also a reference to the character of evidence which
has to be prima facie considered.
47. The
judgments referred to by learned counsel Mr. Ravani were in the facts
of the case as in the case of State (represented by the CBI v.
Anil Sharma (supra) it was a case regarding disproportionate
assets, whereas in the judgment in the case of State of Gujarat v.
Narendra K. Amin (supra) the facts were totally different as the
concerned police officer was found to have been directly involved in
the main conspiracy/encounter.
48. It
is in these circumstances, while maintaining the balance between the
right of the accused and the investigating agency-CBI, the court is
of the opinion that the present application deserves to be allowed.
It is required to be mentioned that the apprehension that it may
hamper the investigation will also not be sustainable as this aspect
has also been considered in the aforesaid judgment in the case of
Shri Gurubakh Singh Sibia and ors. (supra) and usual
conditions are there for co-operating with the investigating agency.
49. In
the result, the present application stands allowed.
The applicant-accused AJAY HARIBHAI PATEL
is
ordered to be released on bail in the event of his arrest in
connection with C.B.I. Case No. RCBS1/2010/S/0004-MUM in respect of
the offence alleged against him on his executing a personal bond of
Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) each with one solvent surety
for the like amount and on further conditions that he shall :
(a) remain
present before the trial court regularly as and when directed on the
dates fixed;
(b ) make
himself available for interrogation by the I.O., CBI, whenever and
wherever required.
(c) not
directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any
person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him
from disclosing such facts to the court or to the CBI.
(d) not to
obstruct or hamper the investigation and not to play mischief with
the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the CBI;
(e) at the
time of executing the bond, furnish his address to the I.O. and the
courts concerned, and shall not change his residence till the final
disposal of the case or till further orders;
(f) not to
leave India without the permission of the court and if having a
passport, shall deposit the same before the trial court within a
week;
50. It
would be open to the I.O. to file an application for remand if he
considers it proper and just and the learned Magistrate would decide
it on merits.
51. This
order will hold good if the applicant is arrested at any time within
90 days from today. The order for release on bail will remain
operative only for a period of 10 days from the date of his arrest
during which it will be open to the applicant to make a fresh
application for being enlarged on bail in usual course which, when it
comes before the competent court, will be disposed of in accordance
with law having regard to all the attending circumstances and the
materials available at the relevant time uninfluenced by the act that
anticipatory bail was granted.
52. When
the order was pronounced, learned counsel Mr. Ravani was asked as to
where he would like the applicant-accused to remain present as per
the usual conditions. However, learned counsel Mr. Ravani has stated
that his client would like to take the matter before the Hon’ble Apex
Court and therefore no date or place for remaining present is
required to be stated and, therefore, it is not specifically observed
as to when and where the applicant-accused should remain present.
However, it goes without saying that the applicant-accused shall make
himself available for interrogation and co-operate with the
investigating agency.
Rule is
made absolute. D.S. permitted.
(Rajesh H.
Shukla, J.)
(hn)
Top