TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (2) TMI 1267
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... applicant invites my attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported as 2012 (1) SCC 40 as well as the decisions of this Court in Rajat Sharma vs. State of NCT of Delhi reported as 2015 (3) JCC 1493 Sharad Kumar vs. CBI reported as 2011 (4) JCC 3078 to urge that in view of the circumstance that charges have already been framed against the applicant, no useful purpose shall be served by detaining the applicant in custody. 4. Ms. Kolluru, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State on the contrary would urge that the applicant inter alia been charged for an offence under Section 409 IPC, which upon conviction entails a sentence which may extend up to life and consequently, the Court ought to be circumspect in releasing such an accused on bail. In this behalf, Ms. Kolluru would urge that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India did not consider the circumstance that the applicant in that case had been charged with offence under Section 409 IPC, while enlarging them on regular bail. It is also urged on behalf of the prosecution that the co-accused of the applicant is still at large. 5. In Sanjay Chandra (supra) the Hon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... xxxx 46. We are conscious of the fact that the accused are charged with economic offences of huge magnitude. We are also conscious of the fact that the offences alleged, if proved, may jeopardise the economy of the country. At the same time, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the investigating agency has already completed investigation and the charge-sheet is already filed before the Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi. Therefore, their presence in the custody may not be necessary for further investigation. We are of the view that the appellants are entitled to the grant of bail pending trial on stringent conditions in order to ally the apprehension expressed by CBI. 47. In the view we have taken, it may not be necessary to refer and discuss other issues canvassed by the learned counsel for the parties and the case laws relied on in support of their respective contentions. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion regarding the other legal issues canvassed by the learned counsel for the parties 48. In the result, we order that the appellants be released on bail on their executing a bond with two solvent sureties, each in a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the present case there is no gainsaying the fact that the applicant is charged of an economic offence of some magnitude. However, the fact that the investigating agency has already completed investigation and the chargesheet has already been filed cannot be lost sight of. Furthermore there is no hint or allegation that the accused is a flight risk; nor is there any material to suggest that he will tamper with the evidence. Therefore, in my view, the presence of the applicant in further custody is not necessary. Furthermore, as mentioned above, the beneficiaries in the subject transaction have already been enlarged on anticipatory bail by this court; and the applicant has already been in custody for over five months. Consequently, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to grant of bail pending trial on stringent conditions. 9. In the result it is directed that the applicant be released on bail on his executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court subject to further condition that the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onspiracy thereof which carry life imprisonment. If despite the aforesaid facts, the Supreme Court has released the coaccused persons Sanjay Chandra‟s case (Supra) on bail, the said benefit cannot be denied to the petitioners on the grounds of parity. Moreover, the offences of which the petitioners in general have been charged, carries a punishment of five years under Prevention of Corruption Act or the IPC in comparison to the accused persons in Sanjay Chandra‟s case (supra) where it carried 7 years. So in a way petitioners stand is on better footing, therefore, they ought not to be denied the benefit of bail. Moreover, the Supreme Court order, which is passed in Sanjay Chandra‟s case (supra) is binding on the High Court. The High Court cannot while considering the bail applications of the present accused persons do hair splitting of the order of the Supreme Court and make out a distinction when there is none so as to deny the benefit of said order to the petitioners by saying that the petitioners are charged for the offence of conspiracy under Section 120B IPC red with section 409 IPC which carries the life imprisonment. It will be also in my view would be viola....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d imposition of life imprisonment, yet it consider the case of the co-accused Sanjay Chandra‟s Case (supra) fit to grant bail. These judgments are Official Liquidator Vs. Dayanand & Ors. (2008) 10 SCC 1, State of Bihar Vs. Kalika Kuer @ Kalika Singh & Ors. (2003) 5 SCC 448, Ajmer Singh Vs. State of Haryana, (2010) 3 SCC 746, Izharul Haq Abdul Hamid Shaikh & Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat, (2009) 5 SCC 283, Dinbandhu Sharma Vs. State, 87 (2000) DKT 149, Director of Settlements, A.P. & Ors. Vs. M. R. Apparao & Anr., (2002) 4 SCC 638, Saganthi Suresh Kumar Vs. Jagdeeshan, (2002) 2 SCC 420 and Indian Airlines Vs. Union of India & Ors., 128 (2006) DLT 505 (DB)." 8. Consequently, the contention raised on behalf of the prosecution is not tenable. 9. Mr. Sud, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant would invite my attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in Gautam Kundu vs. Manoj Kumar reported as 2015 SCC OnLine SC 1333. The judgment relied on behalf of the complainant does not come to their aid, inasmuch as, the applicant in that case was inter alia charged with violation of provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. 10. It is also noticed that....