2011 (6) TMI 759 - HC - Indian Laws

Bail denied in conspiracy case citing risk of interference & influence. Legal principles upheld.

The bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. were dismissed due to prima facie evidence of the petitioners' involvement in a significant conspiracy ... - Issues Involved:1. Bail Applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C.2. Allegations of Criminal Conspiracy and Misconduct3. Procedural Aspects of Custody and Remand4. Interpretation of Sections 87 and 88 Cr.P.C.5. Judicial Discretion in Granting Bail6. Prima Facie Evidence and Nature of AccusationDetailed Analysis:1. Bail Applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C.The accused sought bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in relation to FIR No. RC-DAI-2009-A-0045 registered by the CBI for criminal conspiracy and misconduct in the allocation of UAS Licences and 2G spectrum.2. Allegations of Criminal Conspiracy and MisconductThe prosecution alleged a criminal conspiracy involving public servants and private individuals, including the accused, to manipulate the Department of Telecommunications' policy for personal gain. The charge sheet detailed how the policy was altered to benefit specific companies, leading to significant financial loss to the state.3. Procedural Aspects of Custody and RemandThe petitioners argued that they were not in custody when they appeared before the Special Judge pursuant to summons under Section 204 Cr.P.C. They contended that the court erred in remanding them to judicial custody as they were not previously detained. The court referred to Supreme Court judgments to clarify that 'custody' under Section 439 Cr.P.C. includes being under the court's control, even if not physically detained.4. Interpretation of Sections 87 and 88 Cr.P.C.The petitioners argued that under Sections 87 and 88 Cr.P.C., they should be released on bond upon appearance. The court clarified that these sections pertain to processes for ensuring appearance and do not mandate bail for non-bailable offenses. The court emphasized that judicial discretion under Section 88 Cr.P.C. does not override the specific provisions of Section 437 Cr.P.C. for non-bailable offenses.5. Judicial Discretion in Granting BailThe court discussed various precedents emphasizing the balance between personal liberty and the interests of justice. Factors such as the nature and gravity of the accusation, the severity of potential punishment, and the risk of the accused absconding or tampering with evidence were highlighted as crucial in deciding bail applications.6. Prima Facie Evidence and Nature of AccusationThe court found prima facie evidence indicating the petitioners' involvement in the conspiracy and receipt of illegal gratification. The detailed money trail and the timing of transactions suggested an attempt to conceal the bribe. Given the petitioners' political and financial influence, the court deemed it inappropriate to grant bail, fearing potential interference with the investigation and witness tampering.Conclusion:The bail applications were dismissed based on the prima facie evidence of the petitioners' involvement in a significant conspiracy causing substantial financial loss to the state. The court emphasized the risk of interference with the investigation and the potential influence over witnesses due to the petitioners' political and financial clout. The decision was made considering the established legal principles and the specific circumstances of the case.