TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (6) TMI 105
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Companies Act, 1956. The company is engaged in the business of import and export of diverse commodities including agricultural products and diamonds. According to the appellant, the company was a Government of India recognised Four Star Trading House with a turnover of about Rs. 3,935 crores in the year 2005-06. It is also his claim that the company has been accredited with many awards and was ranked first in India under the merchant exporter category in the years 2003-04 and 2005-06. (b) Due to non-payment of advances from various banks, complaints were filed against the company as well as the promoters and directors. The FIRs filed by various banks are : (i) In the year 2008, Punjab National Bank lodged an FIR with the CBI bearing No. RC-I(E)/2008/BSFC, Mumbai. In the said case, only Pradip Shubhashchandra Mehta (A3) was arrested. Remand was not granted by the Special CBI Court at Ahmedabad and bail was granted within a span of one day. The appellant herein was not arrested in this case and formal bail was granted to him on filing charge sheet. (ii) In the year 2009, UCO Bank lodged an FIR with the CBI bearing No. RC 12(E)/2009 in which charge s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....investigation in RC. 12(E)/2009 lodged by the UCO Bank charge sheet was submitted on November 15, 2010 and the appellant was arrested on November 1, 2010 and he was released on temporary bail. (h) Against the order dated October 19, 2010, passed by the High Court, the appellant filed S. L. P. (Crl.) No. 83 of 2011 before this court and the same was disposed of on April 29, 2011, directing the Special Court to take all endeavour for an early completion of the trial. (i) As there was no progress in the trial, the CBI filed a supplementary charge sheet on February 2, 2011, which was served on all the accused including the appellant herein only on August 2, 2011. Since the trial did not come to an end, the appellant filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 195 of 2011 for regular bail before the Special Court. In the meanwhile, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, vide order dated September 15, 2011, in Misc. Application No. 17 of 2011 in Spl. Case No. 03 of 2010 granted temporary bail up to October 20, 2011, to the appellant herein on the ground of medical exigencies. Again on October 19, 2011, considering the health of the appellant, the Special Court extended the temp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es to otherwise ineligible companies and by their conduct, the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) suffered huge loss. The learned Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi rejected the bail applications filed by them by order dated April 20, 2011. The appellants therein moved applications before the High Court under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The same came to be rejected by the learned single judge by his order dated May 23, 2011. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants approached this court by filing appeals. 7. After considering the entire materials, arguments of the various senior counsel as well as the Additional Solicitor General for the CBI and marshalling the earlier decisions of this court and after finding that the trial may take considerable time and the appellants who are in jail have to remain in jail longer than the period of detention had they been convicted and also keeping in mind the fact that the accused are charged with economic offences of huge magnitude, ultimately this court granted bail to all the appellants by imposing severe conditions. 8. It is also relevant to refer the order passed by this court on April 29, 2011, in SLP (Criminal) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re of the years 2006 and 2007. 11. Mr. Rohtagi, learned senior counsel, after taking us through various proceedings by the civil court as well as DRT under SARFAESI Act submitted that entire properties of the appellant and their companies/firms were attached by the orders of the court/Tribunal. According to him, before entering into transaction with the banks, all those properties have been mortgaged and as on date, the appellant cannot do anything with those properties without the permission of the court/Tribunal. In such circumstances, he submitted that there will not be any difficulty in realising the money payable to the banks, if any. In addition to the above factual information, it was pointed out that after the order of this court, on April 29, 2011, there is no progress in the trial. It is also pointed out that the trial has not even commenced inasmuch as a supplementary charge sheet has been served upon the appellant herein only on August 2, 2011. It is further pointed out that the charge has not been framed till this date. It is also brought to our notice that prosecution has relied upon 286 documents and listed 47 witnesses in the charge sheets filed by it. 12. In ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....P/R. dimness of vision Rt. Eye vision deviation of Rt. Eye outward since 1-½ years. Patient is a known case of uncontrolled blood pressure since 4 years, chronic obstructive jaundice since 6 months and fissure in anno with piles. Patient was sent to eye dept. Civil Hospital Ahmedabad on February 2, 2011, seen by Dr. K. P. S. (Ophthalmic Surgical Unit) and diagnosed as Rt. Eye glaucoma, 3rd nerve palsy in Rt. Eye with vitreous hemorrhage, macular degeneration and percentage of blindness is 30 per cent. CT report suggests Fatty replacement of belly and distal tendinous insertion of superectus muscle on Rt. Side. On March 25, 2011, patient was operated for vitreous hemorrhage in private hospital even though, on June 17, 2011, eye examination found fresh vitreous hemorrhage present due to uncontrolled blood pressure and chronic obstructive jaundice. On September 27, 2010, patient was sent to U. M. Mehta Institute of Cardiology and Research Centre for further investigation and treatment where his Echocardiography was done and report suggests Normal LV side and fair LV function reduced LV compliance and 55 per cent. On January 8, 2011, patient w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the appellant herein has also filed a petition for "discharge". Further, even in the counter affidavit filed by the CBI, it is stated that the accused persons moved applications under section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for discharge and the same are pending for hearing and disposal and further the Madhao Merchantile Bank case is going on day to day basis before the Special CBI Court and in addition to the same, Sohrabuddin Fake Encounter case is also pending for trial before the same court. It is clear that the said Special CBI Court is over burdened and in view of the voluminous materials the prosecution has collected, undoubtedly the trial may take a longer time. 16. This court has taken the view that when there is a delay in the trial, bail should be granted to the accused (vide Babba alias Shankar Raghuman Rohida v. State of Maharashtra [2005] 11 SCC 569 and Vivek Kumar v. State of U. P. [2000] 9 SCC 443). But the same should not be applied to all cases mechanically. 17. The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail, a detailed examination of evidence and....