TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (1) TMI 376
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed against the Petitioner are at the most punishable upto seven years except for offence under Section 467 IPC. As per the allegations set out in the charge sheet no offence under Section 467 IPC is made out against the Petitioner. Further the allegation qua forgery relates to insertion of an advertisement wherein instead of the words "Timing, Scoring or/and Result", the words "Timing, Scoring and Result" were used, the cost of which advertisement was only Rs. 69,603/- which was not cleared by the Petitioner. There is no delay in the trial on account of the Petitioner. In fact after filing the charge sheet the CBI has twice filed applications as late as on 24th September, 2011 and 3rd November, 2011 for placing additional documents and further list of witnesses on record. The application dated 3rd November, 2011 has been allowed on the 4th January, 2012, and the matter is now listed for scrutiny. The allegations against the Petitioner are regarding procurement of the Time Scoring Results (TSR) and it is alleged that conditions were created so that the tender could be awarded only to the Swiss Timing Omega. According to learned counsel in fact the tender was not finalized by the org....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hould be placed on record to show that the witnesses are likely to be influenced. The other aspect of the Petitioner being influential so as to be in a position to influence the witnesses is that he has deep roots in the society. The aspect of the Petitioner having deep roots in the society thus there being no likelihood of his fleeing from justice has been ignored by the Trial Court. The allegations are essentially that the Petitioner along with other co-accused conspired to change the eligibility criteria so as to benefit the Swiss Timing Omega. The company Swiss Timing Ltd.(STL) enjoys a huge reputation worldwide. Quality and reputation are not the issues raised. Criminal culpability cannot be attributed in case emphasis is on the quality. There is no allegation of any money trail or any pecuniary benefit to the Petitioner. In fact, the Petitioner himself forwarded a complaint for inquiry in view of the pseudonym complaints received. Reiterating the contentions raised on behalf of Petitioner Suresh Kalmadi, it is contended that even Jarnail Singh and V.K. Gautam in their notes stated that this was the best decision in the situation. On a note prepared by the Petitioner V.K. Verm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat there is a difference between the power of arrest and need to arrest. Relying upon R. Vasudevan v. CBI, 166 (2010) DLT 583 it is contended that being on high place in the society works as a double edged weapon, if it can be alleged that the accused can temper with the evidence and threaten the witnesses, it is also countered by the fact that the accused has roots in the society and thus there is no likelihood of absconding. Relying upon Anil Mahajan v. Commissioner of Customs & another, 2000 III AD (Delhi) 369 it is contended that the bail is a rule and not jail. The purpose of keeping a prisoner in custody is not pre-trial detention. The approach of the learned Trial Court in rejecting the bail is totally casual and the only ground on which bail has been denied is that there is apprehension that the accused may influence the witnesses as they are well connected and influential persons. There is no evidence that the Petitioners tried to influence any prosecution witness. It is further submitted that a person on bail has a better position to defend himself during trial and thus, the Petitioner be granted bail who has been in custody for more than 10 months. There is no justifica....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... In the meantime, three other accused surrendered before the Trial Court and E-copies of the challans were served upon them. Since some of the accused are still not available for trial, the CBI moved an application for separation of the trial, which was opposed by the Petitioners and other accused. In the meantime, CBI filed an application seeking to place on record certain additional documents and statements, which was finally decided on 4th January, 2012. The Trial Court has already directed for proceeding with the matter on day-to-day basis and thus from the perusal of the orders passed by the Trial Court, it is evident that there is no delay on account of the CBI. 8. As regards the allegations under Section 467 IPC, learned counsel for the CBI contends that the gravamen of charge against the Petitioners is that they in concert with other accused to achieve a common object entered into a conspiracy and as a part of conspiracy, Surjit Lal the co-accused forged the documents. A perusal of statements of all witnesses clearly reveals that all powers were centralized in the Petitioners and Mr. Bhanot, who were controlling all the decisions. In the charge-sheet there are prima facie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he website without the knowledge of Technology F.A. Further forgeries were committed by Surjit Lal to ensure publication of EOI so as to favour STL. When the officers of Technology F.A. became aware of this EOI from the newspapers/ website of the O.C. on 29th March, 2009, strong objection was raised byPW-2 Vijay Kumar Gautam in his note dated 23rd March, 2009 which was suppressed. In view of the qualifications required in the EOI, none of the major providers of TSR responded. Thus, Surjit Lal recommended that awarding of the contract for TSR to STL be considered, which recommendation was forwarded by co- accused Lalit Bhanot on 4th May, 2009 to the Ministry of Sports seeking its approval for awarding the contract to STL on a single vendor basis. However, the Government did not agree with the said recommendation and the Organizing Committee was advised to procure the TSR system through open tender. Though PW-1 Sujit Panigrahi recommended that an agreed approach to the provision of TSR system be adopted as the extent of planning and work required to deliver the services was significant, however this note was returned by the office of Petitioner V.K. Verma with the remark that no acti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some un-convicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, 'necessity' is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at libe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n custody during the pendency of trial unless he is enlarged on bail in accordance with law. Such detention cannot be questioned as being violative of Article 21 of the Constitution, since the same is authorized by law. But even persons accused of non- bailable offences are entitled to bail if the Court concerned comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case against him and/or if the Court is satisfied by reasons to be recorded that in spite of the existence of prima facie case, there is need to release such accused on bail, where fact situations require it to do so." 16. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It is also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. In the case of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand : (1977) 4 SCC 308, this Court opined: "2. The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... V.K. Saxena have been relied upon. PW-1 Sujit Panigrahi has alleged that he was harassed and totally sidelined in all the matters. The witness was issued a memo with false allegations resulting in the witness giving resignation to the Petitioner Suresh Kalmadi on 26th November, 2009. The resignation was not accepted at that time and further harassment followed. The witness even asked for being relieved on health grounds as the maltreatment was affecting him and finally on 20th January, 2010 he was relieved of his duty and one Sandeep Arya was brought in, who could manage the things as per the desire of the Petitioners and co-accused. PW-2 V.K. Gautam has stated that due to falsification and manipulation of records, heated arguments ensued between him and V.K. Verma the Petitioner herein, and he threatened to expose the manipulation. However, the Petitioner V.K. Verma contemptuously stated that he was not bothered about it and PW-2 could do what he wanted. PW-2 was removed from the OCFC on 6th November, 2009. PW-2 also had an exchange of words with the Petitioner Suresh Kalmadi on 13th October, 2009 whereafter the work of Technology F.A. was taken away from him and he was put under....