AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (11) TMI 469
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to believe that they wielded sufficient influence in India to secure for him lucrative contracts in India. It was further alleged that in the month of December, 1983, the appellants induced him to pay an amount of US$ one lakh for procuring a contract for him. This amount was alleged to have been paid to appellant No.1, Chandraswami, by two cheques, one for US$ 27,000, dated 29.12.1983 and another for US$ 73,000, dated 30.12.1983. Both the cheques were stated to have been handed over to appellant No.1 on January 4, 1984 in New York. Both the appellants denied the aforesaid allegations as being false and baseless. However, on the aforesaid complaint having been lodged, the appellants were arrested on 13.2.1988 but were ordered to be relea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 3.5.1996, filed an application for cancellation of the non-bailable warrants and also moved another application for grant of bail. Both these applications were dismissed by the C.M.M. on 4.5.1996. He also passed an order cancelling the bail granted earlier to the appellants on 17.2.1988. The orders dated 2.5.1996 and 4.5.1996 were challenged by appellant No.1 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before before the High Court, but without success. By order dated 8.5.1996, the prayer for bail was rejected by the High Court of Delhi. The three main grounds for rejecting bail were; (i) new material had come to light; the C.B.I. apprehended that the appellants may tamper with the evidence; and (iii) the Supreme Court had restrained the appellants f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 10.7.1996. Another application for bail was filed by the appellants before the C.M.M., Delhi, but the same was dismissed on 3.8.1996. Thereupon a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., being Criminal Misc.(main) No.2068/1996, was filed in the High Court of Delhi challenging the said order dated 3.8.1996. The main contention which was raised in the High Court was that the prosecution evidence had started on 23.6.1996 and as the trial of the appellants had not concluded within a period of 60 days from the first date for taking the evidence, they were entitled to be released on bail under Section 437(6) of Cr.P.C. The High Court by the impugned judgment dated 17.9.1996, reiterated its earlier order dated 8.5.1996, whereby it had held that ba....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... propose to examine if the cancellation of the bail granted to the appellants earlier in point of time was justified. The complaint relates to an offence alleged to have been committed by the appellants nearly 16 years ago. Not much progress has taken place in the conduct of the proceedings but the examination-in-chief and a part of the cross-examination of the complainant, the main witness, has been completed. The appellants have been in custody since 2.5.1996. The only reason put forth by the trial court, as well as the High Court, for not releasing the appellants on bail is that there is an apprehension that they are likely to influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence. The main witness in the present case is the complainant ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ttempt of tampering by the accused in India or abroad during the long period available to them earlier. There is no reasonable basis for such an apprehension now at this stage and in the existing circumstances. It was pointed out from the High Court's order dated 8.5.1996, that the statements of W.E. Millar and Kishore Kamdar revealed that the appellants had indulged in similar activity of cheating a number of persons and therefore the apprehension was not misplaced. We failto see how that is a factor supporting the apprehension of tampering in this case. Looking at the nature of the offence which is alleged to have been committed, and the facts and circumstances now in existence, we are of the view that the appellants should be r....