{"id":260921,"date":"2011-10-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-10-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/romesh-sharma-vs-cbi-on-18-october-2011"},"modified":"2018-01-20T16:01:58","modified_gmt":"2018-01-20T10:31:58","slug":"romesh-sharma-vs-cbi-on-18-october-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/romesh-sharma-vs-cbi-on-18-october-2011","title":{"rendered":"Romesh Sharma vs Cbi on 18 October, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Romesh Sharma vs Cbi on 18 October, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: V.K.Shali<\/div>\n
*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n\n+                    BAIL APPLN.651\/2011\n\n                                Date of Decision :   18.10.2011\n\nROMESH SHARMA                                     ...... Petitioner\n                              Through: Mr.Rakesh Tiku, Sr.Adv.\n                                       with Mr.K.K.Manan, Adv.\n\n                               Versus\n\nCBI                                              ....Respondent\n                              Through: Mr. S.K.Saxena, Adv. for\n                                       CBI\nCORAM :\nHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI\n\n1.    Whether Reporters of local papers may be\n      allowed to see the judgment?             YES\n2.    To be referred to the Reporter or not ?  YES\n3.    Whether the judgment should be reported\n      in the Digest ?                          YES\n\n\nV.K. SHALI, J.\n<\/pre>\n
1.    This is a petition under Section 439 read with Section<\/p>\n
      436A<\/a> of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in respect of FIR<\/p>\n
      no.RC1(S) 98\/STF\/CBI registered by P.S. CBI\/STF Delhi in<\/p>\n
      respect of which trial is pending before Sh.K.S.Mohi, ASJ-<\/p>\n
      3, Saket, New Delhi.\n<\/p>\n
\n
Bail A.No.651\/2011                                      Page 1 of 20<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
 2.    Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a Helicopter<\/p>\n
      Model Bell 47 G5-VT EAP belonging to M\/s Pushak Aviation<\/p>\n
      Pvt. Ltd. having its office at Mumbai was transferred in the<\/p>\n
      name of Sh.H.Suresh Rao on 19.9.94. He got the<\/p>\n
      helicopter made air-worthy and was leasing it on hire for<\/p>\n
      various        purposes   including   spray   on   the      fields,<\/p>\n
      electioneering, etc.<\/p>\n
3.    In February, 1996, Sh.H.Suresh Rao came in contact with<\/p>\n
      the petitioner\/Romesh Sharma at Delhi, a resident of C-<\/p>\n
      30, Mayfair Garden, New Delhi who was also having a<\/p>\n
      farm house in Chattarpur, Delhi. It is alleged that Romesh<\/p>\n
      Sharma, the real brother of the accused Harish Mishra,<\/p>\n
      induced H.Suresh Rao to enter into a pre-dated MOU for<\/p>\n
      sale of the Helicopter in favour of his sole proprietorship<\/p>\n
      concern M\/s Reliance Developers and Investors.<\/p>\n
4.    The petitioner was contesting the election for Member of<\/p>\n
      Parliament from Phoolpur constituency, UP in the year<\/p>\n
      1996 and he intended to hire helicopter from Sh.H.Suresh<\/p>\n
      Rao for election purposes.        MOU dated 27.3.1996 was<\/p>\n
      entered into, which was signed by Mr.Harish Mishra,<\/p>\n
Bail A.No.651\/2011                                             Page 2 of 20<\/span>
\n       brother of the petitioner on behalf of M\/s Reliance<\/p>\n
      Developers and Investors.     The MOU was ante-dated as<\/p>\n
      24.2.1996. The reason for ante-dated MOU as alleged by<\/p>\n
      the prosecution was to avoid the objection of the Election<\/p>\n
      Commission regarding the limit of election expenses borne<\/p>\n
      by the petitioner. It is alleged that the petitioner, Romesh<\/p>\n
      Sharma on various      occasions paid an amount of Rs.12<\/p>\n
      lacs to Sh.H.Suresh Rao as hiring charges. Since certain<\/p>\n
      amount was still outstanding H.Suresh Rao along with two<\/p>\n
      of his Advocates i.e. Mr.R.A.Shah and Mr.Rakesh Gupta is<\/p>\n
      alleged to have visited the house of the petitioner on<\/p>\n
      5.6.1996 where he was allegedly forced to sign the<\/p>\n
      documents      regarding transfer of helicopter in favour of<\/p>\n
      Romesh Sharma under threat and duress.<\/p>\n
5.    One Sh.Neeraj Bhatia was also made to hand over the<\/p>\n
      original registration certificate to the petitioner on the<\/p>\n
      promise that he would pay an amount of Rs.18 lacs           to<\/p>\n
      Sh.Neeraj Bhatia, which the petitioner never paid.         On<\/p>\n
      7.6.1996, the petitioner got the helicopter transferred in<\/p>\n
      his own name. On 20.10.1998, H.Suresh Rao along with<\/p>\n
Bail A.No.651\/2011                                       Page 3 of 20<\/span>
\n       Rakesh Gupta met the petitioner at his residence in order<\/p>\n
      to receive whatever amount the petitioner wanted to pay<\/p>\n
      in respect of the helicopter. It is alleged that the petitioner<\/p>\n
      manhandled H.Suresh Rao and his friend Rakesh Gupta.<\/p>\n
      They were abducted and taken to 16, Mahadev Road,<\/p>\n
      residence of an MP. Somebody informed to Delhi police<\/p>\n
      control room about the abduction and consequently, FIR<\/p>\n
      no.799\/98 dated 20.10.1998 was registered at P.S.Hauz<\/p>\n
      Khas, New Delhi and the investigations were conducted as<\/p>\n
      a consequence of which, the helicopter and various<\/p>\n
      incriminating documents were recovered and Sh.H.Suresh<\/p>\n
      Rao and Rakesh Gupta were got freed from the captivity<\/p>\n
      of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
6.    Investigations of the case were later on transferred to the<\/p>\n
      CBI. Apart from the present petitioner, there were 9 other<\/p>\n
      accused persons and all of them are on bail. The entire<\/p>\n
      evidence in the case has been recorded. The statement of<\/p>\n
      the accused has already been recorded. The case is<\/p>\n
      presently being argued on merits before the learned Judge<\/p>\n
      for final disposal.\n<\/p>\n
\nBail A.No.651\/2011                                         Page 4 of 20<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
 7.    The present bail application has been filed by the<\/p>\n
      petitioner stating that he has been in custody for almost<\/p>\n
      13 years now and all other accused persons are on bail<\/p>\n
      and there is no likelihood that the judgment will be<\/p>\n
      pronounced immediately as arguments are yet to be<\/p>\n
      concluded, therefore, he prays for grant of bail.        It   has<\/p>\n
      been stated that earlier also the matter was heard by one<\/p>\n
      of the Judges for over a year yet the judgment could not<\/p>\n
      be pronounced because of his transfer and now when the<\/p>\n
      matter is to be heard from the beginning, it is bound to<\/p>\n
      take time.\n<\/p>\n
8.    The petitioner has also invoked Section 436<\/a> (A) Cr.P.C. to<\/p>\n
      press his grant of bail by contending that it is mandate of<\/p>\n
      legislature    that   in   case   the   person   concerned    has<\/p>\n
      undergone half of the period of the maximum sentence<\/p>\n
      which the said offence carries, except in an offence which<\/p>\n
      carries sentence of death,        he ought to be released on<\/p>\n
      bail.\n<\/p>\n
9.    The CBI has filed reply to the bail application. The learned<\/p>\n
      counsel for the CBI has not disputed, so far as, the facts<\/p>\n
Bail A.No.651\/2011                                           Page 5 of 20<\/span>
\n       of the case are concerned, however, he has vehemently<\/p>\n
      opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner.           He has also<\/p>\n
      filed written submissions and relied upon number of<\/p>\n
      judgments to contest the bail on merits.<\/p>\n
10.   I have heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner<\/p>\n
      and the learned counsel for the CBI.             I have also gone<\/p>\n
      through the record.\n<\/p>\n
11.   It has been contended by the learned senior counsel that<\/p>\n
      the petitioner has already spent almost 13 years in<\/p>\n
      custody as an under trial and all the remaining accused<\/p>\n
      persons        are   enjoying   bail,   therefore,   the   petitioner<\/p>\n
      deserves to be enlarged on bail.\n<\/p>\n
12.   It has also been contended that the trial of the case is<\/p>\n
      almost complete as the final arguments are being heard,<\/p>\n
      there is absolutely no question of the witnesses being<\/p>\n
      influenced and so far as the question of petitioner’s fleeing<\/p>\n
      away from the processes of law is concerned, it                   was<\/p>\n
      contended that the petitioner has roots in the society and<\/p>\n
      immovable properties in India which lend assurance for his<\/p>\n
      appearance.\n<\/p>\n
\nBail A.No.651\/2011                                                Page 6 of 20<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
 13.   It was also contended by the learned senior counsel that<\/p>\n
      Section 436<\/a> (A) Cr.P.C. is applicable in all the cases accept<\/p>\n
      in a case where any of the offence carries a death<\/p>\n
      sentence. So far as various offences of which the<\/p>\n
      petitioner has been charged are concerned, only one<\/p>\n
      offence        u\/S   395   IPC<\/a>   carries     a    sentence    of    life<\/p>\n
      imprisonment and even if the petitioner is held guilty for<\/p>\n
      an     offence       u\/S   395   IPC<\/a>   and       sentenced    to    life<\/p>\n
      imprisonment, it means that the petitioner will not be able<\/p>\n
      to come out from the jail before expiry of 14 years. The<\/p>\n
      learned senior counsel has stated that any person who is<\/p>\n
      sentenced to life imprisonment shall not be released<\/p>\n
      before expiry of 14 years. Reliance has been placed upon<\/p>\n
      a judgment of the Apex Court in case titled Ramraj Vs.<\/p>\n
      State of Chhattisgarh, AIR 2010 SC 420, wherein the<\/p>\n
      word ‘life imprisonment’ has been interpreted as an<\/p>\n
      imprisonment, minimum term of which is 14 years. It has<\/p>\n
      also been observed in the said judgment that it is not to<\/p>\n
      be interpreted as being imprisonment for whole of the<\/p>\n
      natural life of a convict.        This interpretation was relied<\/p>\n
Bail A.No.651\/2011                                                 Page 7 of 20<\/span>
\n       upon with a view to dispel the objection raised by the<\/p>\n
      learned counsel for the CBI that the life imprisonment<\/p>\n
      does not necessarily mean an imprisonment of 14 years, it<\/p>\n
      means for whole of the life and if a person is sentenced to<\/p>\n
      life imprisonment then the Court is not sure or able to<\/p>\n
      gauge as to whether a person would serve the sentence of<\/p>\n
      20 years, 30 years or 40 years depending upon his life<\/p>\n
      expectancy.    In this regard, the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
      CBI had referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in<\/p>\n
      case titled Swamy Shraddananda @ Murli Manohar Mishra<\/p>\n
      Vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 2008 SC 3040, where while<\/p>\n
      converting the death sentence of a convict to            life<\/p>\n
      imprisonment, it was observed by the Apex Court that the<\/p>\n
      life imprisonment in the said case does not mean only 14<\/p>\n
      years but it would mean the entire life of the accused. But<\/p>\n
      this judgment has been distinguished in Ramraj’s case<\/p>\n
      (supra).\n<\/p>\n
14.   The learned counsel for the CBI has also contended that<\/p>\n
      the case is already at the fag end inasmuch as arguments<\/p>\n
      on merits are being heard and therefore, the petitioner<\/p>\n
Bail A.No.651\/2011                                      Page 8 of 20<\/span>
\n       may not be granted bail as he will flee from the processes<\/p>\n
      of law.        It was contended that the matter was argued<\/p>\n
      earlier also for almost two years before another Judge,<\/p>\n
      however, unfortunately, the learned Judge was transferred<\/p>\n
      and consequently, the judgment could not be pronounced.<\/p>\n
15.   The learned counsel for the CBI has also referred to a<\/p>\n
      number of judgments in order to contest the claim of the<\/p>\n
      petitioner for grant of bail. These judgments are, State of<\/p>\n
      Maharashtra Vs. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao, AIR<\/p>\n
      1989 SC 2292; Ajay Aggarwal Vs. Union of India & Ors.,<\/p>\n
      1993 SCC (Cri) 961; State of Maharashtra Vs. Somnath<\/p>\n
      Thapa, 1996 Cri. L.J. (SC) 2448; N.Devindrappa Vs.<\/p>\n
      State of Karnataka, II (2007) CCR 381 (SCC) and V.Y.<\/p>\n
      Joshe & Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr., I (2008) CCR<\/p>\n
      246 (SC).\n<\/p>\n
16.   I have gone through these judgments. However, I do not<\/p>\n
      think that it is necessary to discuss these judgments for<\/p>\n
      the simple reason that the points, which are raised there<\/p>\n
      in regarding filing of successive bail application or as to<\/p>\n
      what are the ingredients of conspiracy or cheating and as<\/p>\n
Bail A.No.651\/2011                                      Page 9 of 20<\/span>
\n       to whether these are made out or not, are not involved in<\/p>\n
      the present case. It is not the stand of the learned senior<\/p>\n
      counsel for the petitioner that the bail should be granted<\/p>\n
      to him on merits of the case.     The only question to be<\/p>\n
      examined is whether the petitioner who has undergone<\/p>\n
      nearly 13 years of incarceration, where he is facing a trial<\/p>\n
      for an offence under Section 395<\/a> Cr.P.C. which carries life<\/p>\n
      sentence, should he ought to be released on bail pending<\/p>\n
      conclusion of the trial?     This question needs to be<\/p>\n
      answered in the light of two facts, one that all remaining<\/p>\n
      accused are on bail   and secondly, even if it is assumed<\/p>\n
      that he is convicted for an offence u\/S 395 IPC<\/a> he may not<\/p>\n
      be released before undergoing minimum 14 year of<\/p>\n
      sentence.\n<\/p>\n
17.   I have carefully considered the submissions made by the<\/p>\n
      respective sides.\n<\/p>\n
18.   At the outset, it may be mentioned that the petitioner<\/p>\n
      does not have clean antecedents and is involved in<\/p>\n
      number of criminal matters. But in most of these matters,<\/p>\n
      he has either been enlarged on bail or he has been<\/p>\n
Bail A.No.651\/2011                                      Page 10 of 20<\/span>
\n       acquitted       or   even   convicted   and   sentenced,   which<\/p>\n
      sentence, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has<\/p>\n
      been in custody for the last 13 years, he must necessarily<\/p>\n
      have undergone. The tabulation form of these cases and<\/p>\n
      their outcome is given as under:-\n<\/p>\n
       Sl.No.              Offence u\/S              Sentence\n<\/p>\n
      1.             421, 420, 323, 395, 397, 420 (7 years)
\n                     412, 506, 120B IPC<\/a>       323(1 year)
\n                                              395(Life\/10 yrs.)
\n                                              397 (7 years)
\n                                              412 (Life\/10 yrs.)
\n                                              506(2    years,    if
\n                                              threat for death-7
\n                                              years)\n<\/p>\n
      2.             50 Wildlife Act          Punishment
\n                                              prescribed\n<\/p>\n
      3.             61\/1\/14 Excise Act<\/a>       Acquitted        on
\n                                              20.8.2011\n<\/p>\n
      4.             25\/30\/54\/59 Arms Act<\/a>     3 years max.\n<\/p>\n
      5.             384, 506 IPC<\/a>              384-3 years\n                                              506-2 years\n      6.             448\/384\/506\/468\/471      448-1 year\n                                              384-3 years\n                                              506-2 years\n                                              468-7 years\n                                              471-7 years\n      7.             120B r\/w Sec. 302 IPC<\/a>    --\n      8.             120B r\/w Sec. 384\/386 384-3 years\n                     IPC<\/a>                      386-10 years\n      9.             384 IPC<\/a>                  384 -3 years\n<\/pre>\n
      10.            420\/467\/471\/468\/448\/506 Max. punishment
\n                     IPC<\/a>                      is under 467 i.e.
\n                                              Life.\n<\/p>\n
      11.            448,467,468, 471 IPC<\/a>     Max. punishment
\n                                              is under 467 i.e.<\/p>\n
Bail A.No.651\/2011                                          Page 11 of 20<\/span>
\n                                                  Life<\/p>\n
      12.            386-10 yrs. 506, 120B IPC<\/a>   Acquitted       by
\n                                                 Sessions Court on
\n                                                 16.7.2006\n<\/p>\n
      13.            384 IPC<\/a>                     3 yrs.-Discharged\n<\/p>\n
      14.            57 FERA                     4   yrs.   and    6
\n                                                 months and fine of
\n                                                 `55 lacs\n<\/p>\n
      15.            57 FERA                     Pending arguments\n<\/p>\n
      16.            302 , 120B IPC<\/a>              Acquitted by High
\n                                                 Court<\/p>\n
19.   The aforesaid table would show that at serial no.1, which<\/p>\n
      are the details of the present case, it is only an offence<\/p>\n
      under Section 395<\/a> IPC which carries a maximum sentence<\/p>\n
      of life imprisonment.\n<\/p>\n
20.   One of the main factors to be taken into account while<\/p>\n
      granting bail is the gravity of the offence. The same can<\/p>\n
      be judged by the quantum of sentence which it carries,<\/p>\n
      obviously, seen from this angle, the offence carries life<\/p>\n
      sentence and thus is very serious.\n<\/p>\n
21.   No doubt, the Supreme Court in Swamy Shraddananda’s<\/p>\n
      case (supra) had observed that conversion of the death<\/p>\n
      sentence into a sentence of life imprisonment does not<\/p>\n
      mean imprisonment only upto 14 years but ‘life sentence’,<\/p>\n
Bail A.No.651\/2011                                         Page 12 of 20<\/span>
\n       means the entire life, but this was a judgment which has<\/p>\n
      not been held to be laying down the correct interpretation<\/p>\n
      of the ‘life sentence’ in a subsequent judgment in the<\/p>\n
      Ramraj’s case (supra). Further even if the judgment of<\/p>\n
      Swamy Shraddananda’s case (supra) is considered, the<\/p>\n
      facts of the said case are distinguishable from the facts of<\/p>\n
      the present case as it was a case of murder which<\/p>\n
      admittedly carried death sentence and while as the<\/p>\n
      present case, does not carry the death sentence but only<\/p>\n
      life sentence, therefore, I feel that it may not be correct to<\/p>\n
      apply the ratio of the said judgment to the facts of the<\/p>\n
      present case.\n<\/p>\n
22.   Thus the net result of these two authorities would be that<\/p>\n
      in case a person is sentenced to life imprisonment in<\/p>\n
      respect of an offence which does not carry the death<\/p>\n
      sentence, he will not be able to come out from the prison<\/p>\n
      before undergoing 14 years of sentence. If that be so,<\/p>\n
      then so far as the present petitioner is concerned, prima<\/p>\n
      facie, at this point of time, there is nothing to assume that<\/p>\n
      even if he is convicted for an offence u\/S 395, he will be<\/p>\n
Bail A.No.651\/2011                                        Page 13 of 20<\/span>
\n       sentenced to ‘life imprisonment’, which would mean the<\/p>\n
      entire life of a person.    Therefore, prima facie, I am<\/p>\n
      inclined to hold that even if the petitioner is sentenced to<\/p>\n
      ‘life imprisonment’ u\/S 395 IPC<\/a> even then the minimum<\/p>\n
      imprisonment which is expected to undergo by him is 14<\/p>\n
      years      and since he has already undergone almost 13<\/p>\n
      years of the imprisonment, it is a fit case where the<\/p>\n
      petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail, because 13<\/p>\n
      years is admittedly more than one half of the sentence,<\/p>\n
      rather a substantial portion of the sentence has already<\/p>\n
      been undergone, if imposed on the petitioner.<\/p>\n
23.   The contention of the learned counsel for the CBI is that<\/p>\n
      so far as Section 436(A)<\/a> IPC is concerned, although the<\/p>\n
      legislature has excluded the applicability of the said<\/p>\n
      Section only in cases of offence where one of the sentence<\/p>\n
      is death sentence but it does not preclude the applicability<\/p>\n
      of the said provision to an offence where the life<\/p>\n
      imprisonment is imposed.      Meaning thereby, that any<\/p>\n
      offence which carries ‘life imprisonment’ will not have the<\/p>\n
      applicability of Section 436A<\/a> Cr.P.C. If this interpretation<\/p>\n
Bail A.No.651\/2011                                      Page 14 of 20<\/span>
\n       of the learned counsel for the CBI is accepted, it will be<\/p>\n
      doing violence to the language of the provision     and the<\/p>\n
      object for which it was enacted. The reason which has<\/p>\n
      been given by the learned counsel for the CBI for such an<\/p>\n
      interpretation is that in case where a person is sentenced<\/p>\n
      to ‘life imprisonment’, it will not be open to the Judge or<\/p>\n
      the Court as to what will be the total period of sentence<\/p>\n
      which a party will be undergoing because nobody is aware<\/p>\n
      about the total life expectancy of a person.<\/p>\n
24.   I do not agree with such submission made by the learned<\/p>\n
      counsel for the CBI.   The object of Section 436A<\/a> Cr.P.C.<\/p>\n
      essentially was to decongest the jails by extending the<\/p>\n
      benefit of grant of bail to the under trials who had already<\/p>\n
      undergone more than one and a half of the total sentence<\/p>\n
      which an offence carried the said benefit was deprived in<\/p>\n
      cases where the offence carried a death sentence, if that<\/p>\n
      was the object then we will be doing violence to the<\/p>\n
      provision of the statute by importing in it the offence<\/p>\n
      which carry the ‘life sentence’ as it would be against the<\/p>\n
      basic rule of interpretation of statute. Further, Section<\/p>\n
Bail A.No.651\/2011                                      Page 15 of 20<\/span>
\n       436(A)         Cr.P.C<\/a>.   is   a   benevolent   provision,   which     is<\/p>\n
      incorporated by the legislature with a view to ameliorate<\/p>\n
      the conditions of the under trials who are languishing in<\/p>\n
      jail for a long period of time having undergone more than<\/p>\n
      half of the sentence which the offence carries. The said<\/p>\n
      provision cannot be interpreted in a manner so as to<\/p>\n
      deprive the benefit of such beneficial legislation to the<\/p>\n
      under trial. I, therefore, feel that the argument which is<\/p>\n
      advanced by the learned counsel for the CBI is not<\/p>\n
      acceptable and the submission made by the learned senior<\/p>\n
      counsel for the petitioner seems to be more plausible and<\/p>\n
      rational as well as in line with the object of the enactment<\/p>\n
      and incorporation of the provision.\n<\/p>\n
25.   Although I do not agree with the interpretation given by<\/p>\n
      the learned counsel for the CBI as has been detailed<\/p>\n
      hereinabove but there is another aspect of the matter.<\/p>\n
      The Apex Court in Pramod Kumar Saxena Vs. Union of<\/p>\n
      India & Ors., (2008) 9 SCC 685, while considering the<\/p>\n
      grant of bail to the petitioner under Section 436A<\/a> of the<\/p>\n
      Cr.P.C. observed that the aforesaid provision is not<\/p>\n
Bail A.No.651\/2011                                                Page 16 of 20<\/span>
\n       retrospective in its application. Meaning thereby that it is<\/p>\n
      applicable only to cases, which have arisen after the<\/p>\n
      amendment was brought into Cr.P.C<\/a>. The observation of<\/p>\n
      the Apex Court is binding, therefore, the benefit of Section<\/p>\n
      436A<\/a> Cr.P.C. cannot be given to the petitioner. However,<\/p>\n
      dehors Pramod Kumar Saxena’s case (supra), keeping in<\/p>\n
      view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present<\/p>\n
      case that the petitioner has been in custody for 13 years<\/p>\n
      and all other co-accused are on bail and the fact that<\/p>\n
      evidence has already been concluded long back, I feel that<\/p>\n
      the benefit of bail, in my considered opinion, ought to be<\/p>\n
      extended to him also.     Even if, it is assumed that the<\/p>\n
      petitioner will be held guilty for an offence under Section<\/p>\n
      395<\/a> IPC, he will be required to undergo minimum of 14<\/p>\n
      years & unexpired portion of his sentence would be one<\/p>\n
      year approximately.\n<\/p>\n
26.   The only question, which arises, is that, having said so,<\/p>\n
      the other aspects have also to be seen while, enlarging<\/p>\n
      the petitioner on bail namely, his past conduct, his<\/p>\n
Bail A.No.651\/2011                                      Page 17 of 20<\/span>
\n       chances of fleeing away from the processes of law and the<\/p>\n
      conditions, which are conducive for holding a fair trial.<\/p>\n
27.   As far as the holding of fair trial is concerned, the trial is<\/p>\n
      at the penultimate stage inasmuch as witnesses have<\/p>\n
      been testified and arguments are being heard. Therefore,<\/p>\n
      the petitioner cannot create conditions, which are not<\/p>\n
      conducive for holding a fair trial. So far as the witnesses<\/p>\n
      who have testified against the petitioner are concerned,<\/p>\n
      he can certainly be put to notice that no threats ought to<\/p>\n
      be advanced to the persons who have testified against<\/p>\n
      him and if done so, he will be doing so on his own peril.<\/p>\n
28.   So far as the past conduct of the petitioner and the<\/p>\n
      number of cases against him are concerned, no doubt it<\/p>\n
      does not make a happy reading, inasmuch as the<\/p>\n
      petitioner seems to be having criminal proclivities as there<\/p>\n
      were as many as 16 cases registered against him in which<\/p>\n
      he was facing trial out of which some of the cases are still<\/p>\n
      pending trial and in some other cases, he has either<\/p>\n
      already been convicted or acquitted or sentenced which<\/p>\n
      having regard to his incarceration of 13 years, I assume<\/p>\n
Bail A.No.651\/2011                                        Page 18 of 20<\/span>
\n       he must have undergone by now. The tabulation form of<\/p>\n
      the cases show that the petitioner is on bail in most of<\/p>\n
      these cases, which are still pending trial. So far as further<\/p>\n
      conduct of the petitioner is concerned, it can always be<\/p>\n
      regulated by putting conditions that no further offence be<\/p>\n
      committed.\n<\/p>\n
29.   As regards, fleeing away from the processes of law, the<\/p>\n
      petitioner can be put to certain conditions to ensure that<\/p>\n
      he continues to submit to the processes of law by<\/p>\n
      furnishing heavy sureties more so when the property<\/p>\n
      involved in the case was a valuable property running into<\/p>\n
      crore of rupees.\n<\/p>\n
30.   For the reasons mentioned above, I feel that it is a fit case<\/p>\n
      for granting the   benefit of bail to the petitioner as the<\/p>\n
      petitioner has already undergone a period of incarceration<\/p>\n
      as an under trial for nearly 13 years and he deserves to<\/p>\n
      be enlarged on bail.       I accordingly, direct that the<\/p>\n
      petitioner be released on bail on furnishing a personal<\/p>\n
      bond in the sum of Rs.20 lacs with two sureties of the like<\/p>\n
Bail A.No.651\/2011                                       Page 19 of 20<\/span>
\n       amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, subject to<\/p>\n
      the following conditions:-\n<\/p>\n
          (i)        That the petitioner shall surrender his passport
\n                     before the Court, if he has any,\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          (ii)       That the petitioner shall not threaten any of the
\n                     witnesses who have testified against him,\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          (iii)      That he shall not leave the National Capital
\n                     Region of Delhi without the permission of the
\n                     Court,\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          (iv)       He shall keep his place of residence and the
\n                     mobile number available with the IO as well as
\n                     the Court,\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          (v)        He   shall   appear    before     the    SHO    of   the
\n                     concerned     police   station,     to     record     his
\n                     presence, on every alternate Saturday.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
31.   With these directions, the bail application of the petitioner<\/p>\n
      is allowed.\n<\/p>\n
32.   The petition is disposed of.\n<\/p>\n
\n
                                                             V.K. SHALI, J.\n<\/p>\n
OCTOBER 18, 2011
\nRN\/SS<\/p>\n
Bail A.No.651\/2011                                                Page 20 of 20<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Romesh Sharma vs Cbi on 18 October, 2011 Author: V.K.Shali * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN.651\/2011 Date of Decision : 18.10.2011 ROMESH SHARMA …… Petitioner Through: Mr.Rakesh Tiku, Sr.Adv. with Mr.K.K.Manan, Adv. Versus CBI ….Respondent Through: Mr. S.K.Saxena, Adv. for CBI CORAM : HON’BLE MR. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-260921","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRomesh Sharma vs Cbi on 18 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/romesh-sharma-vs-cbi-on-18-october-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Romesh Sharma vs Cbi on 18 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/romesh-sharma-vs-cbi-on-18-october-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-10-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-20T10:31:58+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/romesh-sharma-vs-cbi-on-18-october-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/romesh-sharma-vs-cbi-on-18-october-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Romesh Sharma vs Cbi on 18 October, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-10-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-20T10:31:58+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/romesh-sharma-vs-cbi-on-18-october-2011\"},\"wordCount\":3524,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/romesh-sharma-vs-cbi-on-18-october-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/romesh-sharma-vs-cbi-on-18-october-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/romesh-sharma-vs-cbi-on-18-october-2011\",\"name\":\"Romesh Sharma vs Cbi on 18 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-10-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-20T10:31:58+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/romesh-sharma-vs-cbi-on-18-october-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/romesh-sharma-vs-cbi-on-18-october-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/romesh-sharma-vs-cbi-on-18-october-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Romesh Sharma vs Cbi on 18 October, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Romesh Sharma vs Cbi on 18 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/romesh-sharma-vs-cbi-on-18-october-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Romesh Sharma vs Cbi on 18 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/romesh-sharma-vs-cbi-on-18-october-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-10-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-20T10:31:58+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/romesh-sharma-vs-cbi-on-18-october-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/romesh-sharma-vs-cbi-on-18-october-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Romesh Sharma vs Cbi on 18 October, 2011","datePublished":"2011-10-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-20T10:31:58+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/romesh-sharma-vs-cbi-on-18-october-2011"},"wordCount":3524,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/romesh-sharma-vs-cbi-on-18-october-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/romesh-sharma-vs-cbi-on-18-october-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/romesh-sharma-vs-cbi-on-18-october-2011","name":"Romesh Sharma vs Cbi on 18 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-10-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-20T10:31:58+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/romesh-sharma-vs-cbi-on-18-october-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/romesh-sharma-vs-cbi-on-18-october-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/romesh-sharma-vs-cbi-on-18-october-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Romesh Sharma vs Cbi on 18 October, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/260921","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=260921"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/260921\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=260921"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=260921"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=260921"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}