Anurag Vardhan vs Central Bureau Of Investigation
2003 Latest Caselaw 677 Del

JUDGMENT

S.K. Agarwal, J.

1. This is a petition under Section 439 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.) for grant of bail in case No. RC No. 31(A)/2003-DLI dated 22.5.2003 under Section 120-B, IPC, read with Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13(1)(D) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner is an IRS officer; he was working as Deputy Commissioner in the Income-tax Department at New Delhi. The prosecution allegations are that on 22.5.2003, at about 9.30 a.m., Shri Perumal Swamy @ Babu (co-accused), who was then working as Personal Assistant to the Minister of State for Finance, was arrested in front of his house and Rs. 4.0 lacs was recovered from him. Thereafter, petitioner's house was searched and another Rs, 3.0 lacs was recovered. Petitioner was also arrested. CBI also arrested Mr. A Krishnamurthy, (co-accused), Chartered Accountant, from Chennai and recovered Rs. 69,58,850/- from his residence in cash; undated signed cheques worth about Rs. 50.0 lacs; and promissory notes worth Rs. 35.0 lacs. All the accused persons were produced before the Court and they suffered police custody remand for several days. The accused are now in judicial custody for the last 47 days. Learned Counsel further argued that allegations against the petitioner are totally false; he has been falsely implicated; he has two children, who are suffering from autistic disorder; he is no longer required for any investigations; and that there is no likelihood of the challan being filed within the statutory period of 60 days prescribed under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C. after which petitioner would be entitled to be released on bail. Therefore, petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.

3. Ms. Neelam Graver, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of CBI, on instructions from the Investigating Officer (for short 'I.O.')/ who is present in Court, opposes the bail application and argued that on specific information, telephone conversations between the petitioner and the Chartered Accountant Mr. A. Krishnamurthy (co-accused) was tape-recorded. The conversation reveals that petitioner had given the amount of Rs. 4.0 lacs as bribe to Mr. R. Peruswamy, (co-accused), for arranging his transfer from Delhi to Mumbai; and that investigations are still in progress, therefore, accused persons are entitled to be released on bail. Learned Counsel is, however, unable to contest that the accused persons are in custody for the last 47 days and the Investigating Agency would not be in a position to file the challan in the next 13 days and that the accused persons would be entitled to be released on bail on completion of 60 days in judicial custody.

4. In view of the above admitted factual and legal position, only question which requires consideration is whether keeping the accused in judicial custody for further 13 days would serve any useful purpose. On being asked a specific question as to how the release of the accused, at this stage, would interfere with the investigations, learned Counsel for the CBI argued that statement of witnesses from AIRTEL and BSNL are yet to be recorded and CBI apprehends that these witnesses may not come forward to give their statements, in case the accused persons are released on bail. It is difficult to appreciate this argument. Admittedly, IO has already collected print outs of relevant record from the AIRTEL and BSNL to support the plea that there was earlier conversations amongst the accused persons regarding giving of the bribe by the petitioner to secure the transfer from Delhi to Bombay. The witnesses are to be examined on the basis of the record already collected, nothing more. As per the settled law, telephone conversations, if proved, to be genuine and not tampered with, can at best constitute a corroborating piece of evidence. Reference in this regard may be made to the Supreme Court decision in Mahabir Prasad v. Surinder Kaur, . Investigations regarding substantive piece of evidence appears to be already complete. The accused persons cannot be kept in judicial custody as a measure of pre-trial punishment. In the facts and circumstances of this case, in my view, no useful purpose is likely to be served by keeping the accused persons in custody any longer.

5. For the foregoing reasons, petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 2.0 lacs with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/ACMM/Duty Magistrate, subject to the conditions that, (i) he shall not influence or tamper with the evidence or contact the witnesses; (ii) he shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Trial Court; (iii) he shall surrender his passport, if any; and (iv) he shall participate in the investigation as and when required.

Petition stands disposed of. dusty to both the parties.