NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/7350/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/11/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR SUCCESSIVE REGULAR BAIL -
AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 7350 of 2023
==========================================================
BIMAL RAMGOPAL AGRAWAL @ BIMAL AGARWAL
Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
==========================================================
Appearance:
ADITYA R PARIKH(8769) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
HARSH K RAVAL(9068) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR RC KODEKAR(1395) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY
Date : 10/11/2023
ORAL ORDER
1. This application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for regular bail in connection with F.I.R. No.3(A) of 2015 registered with CBI/AC-III Police Station, District New Delhi, for the offences punishable under Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 7, 12, 13(2) r/w. Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Page 1 of 12 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 10 21:11:29 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/7350/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/11/2023 undefined
2. Learned senior advocate Mr. J. M. Panchal appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is in jail in connection with the aforesaid offence for a period of more than one year and trial has been delayed for no fault of the present applicant. He further submits that the main accused persons have been considered for grant of regular bail and therefore, the present applicant is also entitled to be enlarged on bail. Learned senior counsel fairly submits that the present applicant was also ordered to be enlarged on bail by the learned Sessions Court. However, the said order was challenged before this Court and the order granting bail to the present applicant was quashed and set aside by this Court, which was confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. However, having regard to the facts that the applicant is in custody for a period of one Page 2 of 12 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 10 21:11:29 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/7350/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/11/2023 undefined year and trial has not proceeded further, the submissions of learned senior counsel to the case of the present applicant should be considered for grant of bail.
2.1 Learned senior advocate Mr. Panchal, in support of his submissions, places reliance on the judgments of the Honourable Apex Court rendered in the cases of Ramesh Chander Singh vs. High Court of Allahabad and Another reported in (2007) 4 SCC 247, Junaid vs. the State of Gujarat order passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.11608 of 2022, LT. COL. Prasad Shrikant Purohit vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2018) 11 SCC 458 and Sanjay Jha vs. State of Chhattisgarh reported in (2014) 3 SCC
202.
3. The learned advocate Mr. R. C. Kodekar Page 3 of 12 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 10 21:11:29 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/7350/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/11/2023 undefined appearing for the respondent - Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has opposed the present application stating that the main accused namely, Mr. J. P. Singh, who at that relevant point of time, was working as a Joint Director in the Enforcement Directorate, Ahmedabad, was in touch with the present applicant on mobile phone and present applicant was acting as conduit of the said main accused. The other co-accused, namely, Surendra Kalra has turned approver and thus, on the said ground has been ordered to be enlarged on bail. He further submits that the proceedings of trial have been stayed by this Court at the behest of the present applicant vide order dated 02.02.2023 passed in Special Criminal Application No.1060 of 2023 and other allied matters and because of the said order the trial is not proceeding further. Page 4 of 12 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 10 21:11:29 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/7350/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/11/2023 undefined 3.1 Learned advocate Mr. Kodekar submits that it has come on record subsequently that while being on bail, the applicant had pressurized the witnesses to the case of prosecution and subsequently the Charge-sheet also came to be filed against the present applicant to the said effect. He submits that the order of this Court cancelling the bail granted to the present applicant has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. He submits that even after the order of this Court cancelling the bail was confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the present applicant did not surrender in time and had instead committed another offence at Bhavnagar. He further submits that there is no change in circumstances after bail granting to the present applicant was cancelled. There are other antecedents against the present Page 5 of 12 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 10 21:11:29 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/7350/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/11/2023 undefined applicant. He, therefore, submits that the present application is required to be dismissed.
3.2 Learned advocate Mr. Kodekar, in support of his submissions, places reliance on the judgments of the Honourable Apex Court rendered in the cases of State of T. N. vs. S. A. Raja reported in (2005) 8 SCC 380, Nimmagadda Prasad vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2013) 7 SCC 466, State of U. P. vs. Amarmani Tripathi with State of U. P. vs. Madhumani Tripathi reported in (2005) 8 SCC 2, Shahzad Hasan Khan vs. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan and Another reported in (1987) 2 SCC 684, State of Maharashtra vs. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao reported in 1989 Supp (2) SCC 605 and State of M. P. vs. Kajad reported in (2001) 7 SCC
673. Page 6 of 12 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 10 21:11:29 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/7350/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/11/2023 undefined
4. I have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the papers of record.
5. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the present applicant had preferred Criminal Misc. Application No.161 of 2017 before the Special C.B.I. Court, Ahmedabad (Rural) for being enlarged on bail. The learned Special Court vide its order dated 12.05.2017 had been pleased to allow the said application and enlarged the applicant on bail subject to certain conditions. Against the said order, the respondent - CBI had filed Criminal Misc. Application No.15116 of 2017 before this Court under Section 439(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code for cancelling the bail. The said application filed by the CBI came to be allowed by this Court vide order dated Page 7 of 12 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 10 21:11:29 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/7350/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/11/2023 undefined 23.09.2022. The present applicant had carried the said order to the Hon'ble Apex Court by filing Special Leave (Criminal) Appeal No.9775 of 2022, which came to be dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 15.11.2022. However, while dismissing the said application, the Hon'ble Apex Court had granted permission to the present applicant to file an application afresh for bail in case of change in circumstances/after reasonable time i.e. 4 months.
6. Thus, these facts clearly indicate that the applicant was once ordered to be enlarged on bail by the learned Special Court and the said bail had been cancelled by this Court as stated herein-above and the same was also confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. This Court while passing order dated 23.09.2022 Page 8 of 12 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 10 21:11:29 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/7350/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/11/2023 undefined in Criminal Misc. Application No.15116 of 2017 has considered the fact that the applicant had obtained amount of Rs.2.75 Crore from one Manoj Jain and Rs.15 Lacs from the co-accused Surender Kalra in the name of Mr. J. P. Singh. This Court has further observed that the present applicant is having a specific role in the alleged conspiracy hatched. This Court had also considered manner in which the prosecution witnesses have been contacted by the present applicant. The present applicant appears to be a prime connecting link in the entire connection of alleged crime. This Court has further observed that there is enough material available against the present applicant about justification of apprehension of CBI to believe that if the opponent no.2 i.e. the present applicant is allowed to remain on liberty, a definite Page 9 of 12 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 10 21:11:29 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/7350/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/11/2023 undefined stand deserves to be accepted about apprehension about him trying to influence the material witnesses of the case. This Court has also recorded that in December, 2021, the prosecution agency came to know about a pen-drive and after scrutiny of the said pen-drive, it was revealed that the present applicant had recorded his convirsation with the witnesses Manoj Jain and Chirag Parekh in which he was clearly seen to be influencing those witnesses. This Court had also recorded the facts that the present applicant has also been investigated by Mumbai Police in two other cases bearing EOW (CR) No.29 of 2012 and EOW (CR) No.23 of 2016, wherein also the applicant is having a specific role.
7. From the aforesaid observations made by this Court while cancelling bail granted to the Page 10 of 12 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 10 21:11:29 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/7350/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/11/2023 undefined present applicant, it appears that after the present applicant was ordered to be enlarged on bail, he had tried to influence the witnesses to the case of the prosecution and therefore, bail granted to the present applicant was cancelled. The role attributed to the present applicant for commission of present offence is very serious in nature.
8. Considering these facts, even if other co-
accused have been granted regular bail, the case of the present applicant cannot be considered for bail on the ground of parity. So far as the aspect of delay in trial is concerned, the record indicates that the present applicant and other co-accused persons have approached this Court by filing Special Criminal Misc. Application No.1060 of 2023 and other allied matters, whereby they have challenged the order dated Page 11 of 12 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 10 21:11:29 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/7350/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/11/2023 undefined 07.01.2023 passed by the Learned CBI Court - 2, Ahmedabad in CBI/6/2017, on the ground that they were not supplied certain documents. This Court vide order dated 02.02.2023 has directed the learned trial Court not to proceed with the hearing with the discharge application and thus, the trial of the case in question has been stayed at the instance of present applicant and other co-accused persons.
9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present application is devoid of merits and the same is hereby dismissed.
(M. R. MENGDEY,J) NABILA Page 12 of 12 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 10 21:11:29 IST 2023