AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 1189
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt to be released on bail in FIR No. RC0102020A0019 dated 21.09.2020 registered under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, 'IPC') read with Sections 7/11/12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short, 'PC Act'). 2. It is the case of the prosecution that the above FIR was originally registered against one Satish Kumar, the then Commandant, BSF-36 Battalion, Md.Enamul Haque, Md.Anarul SK, Md.Golam Mustafa, and other officials of BSF, Indian Customs, and other unknown persons for the commission of offence under Section 120B of the IPC and Sections 7/11/12 of the PC Act. 3. As far as the applicant herein is concerned, he was chargesheeted by the supplementary charge-sheet filed on 06.08.2022 alleging therein tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er. 8. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the main accused- Md. Enamul Haque has been granted bail in the present case by an Order dated 24.01.2022 passed by the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.121/2022, titled Md Enamul Haque v. Central Bureau of Investigation. In the said order, the Supreme Court has observed as under: "10. Having heard the rival submissions, we are of the considered opinion that the continued detention of the appellant in custody is not warranted in the facts of the present case. The appellant was granted default bail by the Special Judge, CBI Court at Thiruvananthapuram on 7 May 2018. In the regular case out of which the present appeal arises, the appellant was arrested and has been in cu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bmits that this trial is at the stage of scrutiny of documents. There are almost 5000 pages of documents in Bengali language which are yet to be translated. Therefore, the trial is not likely to conclude any time soon. He submits that looking into the nature of offences that the applicant has been charged with and his custody since 09.06.2022, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 13. On the other hand, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent submits that the charges against the applicant are rather grave and serious. He was, in fact, the person who provided patronage and support to the accused Anubrata Mondal and Md. Enamul Haque to carry out their illegal activities by threatening villagers and also public ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Amarmani Tripathi [(2005) 8 SCC 21], this Court has held as under : (SCC p. 31, para 18) "18. It is well settled that the matters to be considered in an application for bail are (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the charge; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail [see Prahlad Singh B....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orting evidence. (b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant. (c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. (See Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh (2002) 3 SCC 598 and Puran v. Rambilas (2001) 6 SCC 338' 19. The test to be applied for grant of bail was also considered in Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal v. State of T.N. (2005) 2 SCC 13 , wherein it was held as under : (SCC pp. 21-22, para 16) "16. ... The considerations which normally weigh with the court in granting bail in non-bailable offences have been explained by this Court in State v. Jagjit Singh (1962) 3 SCR 622 and Gurcharan Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi) (1978) 1 S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y be placed on the judgement of the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40. 17. In the present case, there is no apprehension expressed by the respondent that there is any chance of the applicant fleeing from the process of law. As far as the submission that the applicant may influence the witnesses, as noted hereinabove, the main accused have already been released on bail. In any case, if the prosecution later finds that the applicant is misusing the liberty granted to him, it would always be open to the prosecution to move an appropriate application to seek the cancellation of bail. 18. Accordingly, it is directed that the Applicant be released on Bail in FIR No. RC0102020A0019 dated 21.09.2020 registered under Sect....