TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (9) TMI 1271
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2013), Mr. N.R. Manjunath (petitioner in Bail Application No. 1273/2013), Mr. Vijay Singla (petitioner in Bail Application No. 1255/2013) and Mr. Sandeep Goyal (petitioner in Bail Application No. 1274/2013), arising out of Charge-sheet No. 3/2013 dated 2.7.2013 for the offences under Section 120B IPC read with Sections 7, 8 & 12 of the PC Act, 1988 in case FIR No. RC-2172013A0004. The brief facts of the case registered by the respondent/CBI on 3.5.2013, are that it had received information that Mr. Mahesh Kumar (accused No. 1), Member (Staff), Railway Board, was in regular contact with Mr. N.R. Manjunath (accused no. 2), Managing Director of M/s. G.G. Tronics India Pvt. Ltd., and was trying to get a posting as Member (Electrical), Railway Board by illegal and wrongful means. 2. As per the charge-sheet, Mr. Mahesh Kumar and Mr. N.R. Manjunath were in contact with a private businessman/industrialist by the name of Mr. Sandeep Goyal (accused no. 3), a resident of Panchkula, Haryana, who had given an assurance that he was in a position to get the aforesaid work done for them through his contacts with Mr. Vijay Singla (accused no. 4), also a resident of Chandigarh, who happened to be t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ember (Electrical), Railway Board alongwith the additional charge of General Manager, Western Railways. 5. Finally, on 30.4.2013, Mr. N.R. Manjunath had allegedly informed Mr. Sandeep Goyal that 25% of the illegal gratification would be paid to him if the second option referred to hereinabove was executed and on the same day, Mr. N.R. Manjunath conveyed the said instructions to Mr. Sandeep Goyal and informed him that he was arranging a sum of Rs. 1.00 crore immediately. 6. Just to complete the chain, there are two other persons against whom the charge-sheet has been filed by the respondent/CBI, though they were not named in the FIR, namely Mr. C.V. Venugopal (accused no. 9) and Mr. M.V. Murali Krishnan (accused no. 10). Mr. C.V. Venugopal is stated to be working as a Manager (Marketing and Planning) in G.G. Tronics India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore (a company of which Mr. Mr. N.R. Manjunath is the Managing Director). He is also stated to be the Managing Director of M/s. Venkateshwara Nirman Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi (a company from whose account, an amount of Rs. 10.00 lacs was withdrawn for purposes of payment of the illegal gratification to Mr. Vijay Singla). 7. The allegation leveled aga....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Sandeep Goyal had telephoned Mr. N.R. Manjunath enquiring about the money and the latter had agreed to deliver a sum of Rs. 90.00 lacs at Chandigarh on the very next day. On 3.5.2013, the sum of Rs. 90.00 lacs was dispatched through two persons arranged by Mr. Rahul Yadav and Mr. Sameer Sandhir on the directions of Mr. N.R. Manjunath, who was acting for and on behalf of Mr. Mahesh Kumar. When the said amount was being delivered in the official premises of Mr. Vijay Singla at Chandigarh, a team of officers from the respondent/CBI had raided the said premises and recovered a sum of Rs. 89,68,000/- in the presence of Mr. Vijay Singla and Mr. Sandeep Goyal. 13. Thereafter, Mr. Mahesh Kumar (accused no. 1) was arrested on 3.5.2013, and Mr. N.R. Manjunath (accused no. 2), Mr. Sandeep Goyal (accused no. 3), Mr. Vijay Singla (accused no. 4), Mr. Rahul Yadav and Mr. Sameer Sandhir, were arrested on 4.5.2013, Mr. Ajay Garg (accused no. 5) was arrested on 7.5.2013 and Mr. Sushil Daga was arrested on 19.5.2013, and all of them were remanded to judicial custody. The charge-sheet in the present case came to be filed on 2.7.2013. The petitioners and the other co-accused had filed applications ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oing to fall vacant on 30.4.2013, would be taken only when the time would be ripe. The Railway Minister had further stated that Mr. Vijay Singla was not involved in his official deliberations and official decisions and could not influence them and he did not have any knowledge about the meeting allegedly arranged at his official residence between Mr. Mahesh Kumar, Mr. N.R. Manjunath and Mr. Sandeep Goyal at the instance of Mr. Vijay Singla, when he was staying there on 7.4.2013. 18. It was canvassed that the only vacancy that had arisen at the relevant point in time was that of Member (Staff), Railway Board and since Mr. Mahesh Kumar had been duly appointed to the said post, there is no basis for the respondent/CBI to have charged the petitioners for allegedly arranging bribe money for his appointment as Member (Electrical) and even if there was any such plan, as alleged, it stood aborted when Mr. Mahesh Kumar was appointed as Member (Staff), Railway Board. 19. Learned counsels for the petitioners had further contended that once the charge-sheet had been filed by the respondent/CBI on 2.7.2013, no further investigation is required to be conducted for detaining their clients in cu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....because charges have not yet been framed in the case cannot be a ground to deny them bail. It was further submitted that a person on bail is in a better position to defend himself during the trial and this consideration ought to weigh with the Court while deciding the present applications. 22. On merits, it was argued that the material available with the respondent/CBI against the petitioners are recorded conversations and it is a settled legal position that the said conversations cannot be treated as primary evidence for purposes of conviction, but only as corroborative evidence and therefore, there is least possibility of convicting the petitioners for the offences charged. To buttress the said submission, Mr. Arvind Nigam, Senior Advocate had referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Bhagirathsinh s/o. Mahipat Singh Judeja Vs. State of Gujarat reported as (1984) 1 SCC 284 and Ram Singh and others Vs. Col. Ram Singh reported as 1985 (Supp) SCC 611. 23. The individual background and special circumstances of each of the petitioners were separately highlighted by their respective counsels to urge that they are entitled to be enlarged on bail. 24. In the case ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ociety and therefore, is unlikely to flee from justice. 28. Appearing on behalf of Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Mr. Anil Sapra, Senior Advocate had submitted that his client is 44 years of age and is a businessman working for gain and residing at Chandigarh, Haryana, with his wife and a minor son, who are solely dependent on him. It was submitted that he has clean antecedent and no criminal case is pending against him and nor is he a previous convict. 29. Lastly, learned Senior Advocates appearing for all the four petitioners had stated that the prosecution has cited ninety witnesses and has filed a number of documents that shall take a very long time for examination during the trial. It was also pointed out that the report of the CFSL in respect of the voice samples sent for comparison by the respondent/CBI has yet to be received and therefore, it was unlikely that the trial could commence in the near future and in such circumstances, the petitioners' continued custody is no longer required. To substantiate the submissions made hereinabove, reliance was placed on the following decisions: (i) Mahabir Prasad Verma vs. Dr. Surinder Kaur, (1982) 2 SCC 258, (ii) Bhagirathsinh vs. State....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce of the offences, this was not the stage to go into the merits of the case. Learned counsels had urged that the petitioners cannot claim parity with two other co-accused, namely, Mr. Dharmender Kumar and Mr. Vivek Kumar, who had been granted bail by the Special Judge as their role was that of couriers who had carried the bribe amount on the directions of Mr. Rahul Yadav, as against the role of the petitioners herein who are the main accused and were actively involved in the conspiracy. 34. It was argued on behalf of the respondent/CBI that if the court enlarges the petitioners on bail, then there is a reasonable apprehension that they may influence the witnesses as they have high contacts in the society, particularly, Mr. Mahesh Kumar (accused no. 1). Mr. R.V. Sinha pointed out that at the time of his arrest, Mr. Mahesh Kumar was holding the post of Member (Staff), Railway Board and being a very high ranking officer in the Railways, holding a post equivalent to a Secretary level bureaucrat in the Government of India, he could very well try and influence the employees of the Railways, some of whom have been cited by the prosecution as witnesses in the case. As regards the medical....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Kumar and Mr. N.R. Manjunath had roped in Mr. Sandeep Goyal, who was a close friend of Mr. Vijay Singla, nephew of the then Railway Minister, Mr. Pawan Kumar Bansal, and Mr. Singla had agreed to use his personal influence in exchange of pecuniary gratification for achieving the said object. 39. Having perused the charge-sheet, prima facie it cannot be contended that the respondent/CBI has failed to make out a case of conspiracy for the offences punishable under Section 120B IPC read with Sections 7, 8 and 12 of the PC Act. In any event, at this stage, the allegations levelled by the prosecution have to be taken on their face value. The Court must also ensure that there is no pre-judging and no prejudice is caused to either side, and the merits of the case must be left to be decided by the trial court [Ref: Puran Etc. Vs. Rambilas & Anr. (2001) 6 SCC 338, Ram Govind Upadhyay Vs. Sudarshan Singh and Ors. (2002) 3 SCC 598 and Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav & Anr., 2004 (7) SCC 528]. 40. The overriding considerations for grant of bail have been a subject matter of discussion in several decisions of the Supreme Court and High Courts and the essence of the discu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nst the petitioners may extend upto five years and therefore the petitioners are better placed than the petitioner in the aforesaid case. 43. In the case of Sanjay Chandra (supra), the Supreme Court had examined the concept and philosophy of bail, as was considered in the case of Vaman Narain Ghiya v. State of Rajasthan reported as (2009) 2 SCC 281, wherein it was observed that bail may be regarded as a mechanism whereby the State devolutes upon the community the function of securing the presence of the prisoners and at the same time, involves participation of the community in administration of justice. The following observations made by the Supreme Court while discussing the object of bail, are apposite:- 21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that 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 punishme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. XXX XXX XXX 40. The grant or refusal to grant bail lies within the discretion of the Court. The grant or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. But at the same time, right to bail is not to be denied merely because of the sentiments of the community against the accused. The primary purposes of bail in a criminal case are to relieve the accused of imprisonment, to relieve the State of the burden of keeping him, pending the trial, and at the same time, to keep the accused constructively in the custody of the Court, whether before or after conviction, to assure that he will submit to the jurisdiction of the Court and be in attendance thereon whenever his presence is required. 41. This Court in Gurcharan Singh and Ors. Vs. State AIR 1978 SC 179 observed that two paramount considerations, while considering petition for grant of bail in non-bailable offence, apart from the seriousness of the offence, are the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and his tampering with the prosecution witnesses. Both of them relate to ensu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aintain an even handed approach while exercising its judicial discretion in a case where it is alleged by the prosecution that the accused have committed an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the said accused approach the Court for relief against deprivation of their personal liberty. 46. While deciding whether the petitioners herein should be enlarged on bail or bail should be denied to them, the factors to be taken into consideration have already been enumerated above. Both, the seriousness of the charge and the severity of the punishment are also a relevant consideration while examining the bail applications. In the present case, the charge is that of a conspiracy between the accused who were allegedly working in tandem to mobilize illegal gratification to secure a plum post for the main accused, Mahesh Kumar (accused no. 1) in exchange of pecuniary advantage that was agreed to be extended to Mr. Vijay Singla (accused no. 4) so that official favours extended by Mr. Mahesh Kumar could flow to the benefit of the other accused. The maximum punishment prescribed by the Legislature for the said offence is imprisonment that may extend to five years. 47. Coming to the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itnesses, who are employed with the Railway Ministry, all the remaining witnesses are official witnesses. That Shri Mahesh Kumar was a Member (Staff), Railway Board is not considered sufficient ground to arrive at a conclusion that he would dissuade the witnesses, who are working with the Railways from deposing against him, more so when he has been suspended from service. In any case, no allegation has been levelled against any of the petitioners that they had interfered in the course of the investigation or had extended any threats to the prosecution witnesses or intimidated them in any manner. The contention of the learned counsels for the respondent/CBI that the trial court is well entitled to direct further investigation in the case under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. is considered rather tenuous for insisting on the continued incarceration of the petitioners. Furthermore, the investigating agency is well entitled to approach the court for seeking cancellation of the bail order if it is able to demonstrate that the petitioners have attempted to influence the witnesses or otherwise tried to thwart the course of justice in any manner. 50. Another important factor that the Court ....