Delhi High Court
M.P.Dixit vs Cbi on 16 July, 2010
Author: Ajit Bharihoke
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: July 14, 2010
Decided on: July 16, 2010
+ BAIL APPLIATION NO.1060 & CRL.M.A. No.7907/2010
VIJENDER SINGH ....PETITIONER
Through: Mr. D.C. Mathur, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Rahul Tyagi, Advocate & Mr. Atul
Guleria, Advocate
Versus
C.B.I. .....RESPONDENT
Through: Ms. Sonia Mathur, Advocate with Mr.
Sushil Dubey, Advocate
WITH
BAIL APPLIATION NO.1063/2010
SUROJIT SAMANTA ....PETITIONER
Through: Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Anup Bhagai, Advocate with
Mr. Ruchi Kapur, Advocate
Versus
STATE(THROUGH CBI) .....RESPONDENT
Through: Ms. Sonia Mathur, Advocate with Mr.
Sushil K. Dubey, Advocate
WITH
BAIL APPLIATION NO.1064/2010
V.N. SINGH ....PETITIONER
Through: Mr. Ajay Burman, Advocate with
Mr. Rajesh Samanotra, Advocate
Versus
STATE(THROUGH CBI) .....RESPONDENT
Through: Ms. Sonia Mathur, Advocate with Mr.
Sushil K. Dubey, Advocate
Bail Application Nos.1060/2010, 1063/2010, 1064/2010, 1070/2010 & 1128/2010 Page 1 of 8
WITH
BAIL APPLIATION NO.1070/2010
M.P. DIXIT ....PETITIONER
Through: Mr. Yudhishtar Karol, Advocate with
Ms. Naina Kejriwal, Advocate
Versus
CBI .....RESPONDENT
Through: Ms. Sonia Mathur, Advocate with Mr.
Sushil K. Dubey, Advocate
AND
BAIL APPLIATION NO.1128/2010
SANJAY SINGH ....PETITIONER
Through: Mr. Kailash Vasudev, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Pramod Kr. Dubey, Advocate & Mr.
Kunal Sood, Advocate
Versus
CBI .....RESPONDENT
Through: Ms. Sonia Mathur, Advocate with Mr.
Sushil K. Dubey, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE
1. Whether Reporters of local papers
may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be
reported in Digest ?
AJIT BHARIHOKE, J.
By this order, I propose to dispose of the above referred bail
petitions.
Briefly stated, the facts relevant for disposal of above referred
bail petitions are that the case RC No. 2(A)/2010/CBI/ACU II/ND was
registered on the information that M.P.Dixit, Chairman-cum-Managing
Director, South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL), a public sector
undertaking of Government of India, has demanded and agreed to
accept an amount of Rs. 1 Crore for showing favour to one Vijender
Singh of M/s. Bedford Group of Companies, which are having contracts
with SECL, Bilaspur and the said Vijender Singh has agreed to pay the
demanded amount to a person nominated by M.P.Dixit at Delhi. This
amount was to be paid as a motive or reward for showing favour to
Vijender Singh or the companies represented by him having dealings
with the SECL. It is alleged that for the purpose of receiving the illegal
gratification, accused M.P.Dixit contacted Surojit Samanta of M/s.
S.K.Samanta & Company to depute his employee V.N.Singh to collect
the money from some unidentified person. For this purpose, accused
M.P.Dixit obtained mobile No. 965419606 of accused V.N.Singh from
accused Surojit Samanta and told him that some person identifying
himself as Vikram would contact accused V.N.Singh on his mobile
number. It is further alleged that the accused Vijender Singh contacted
V.N.Singh and identified himself as Vikram and informed him that a
person would contact him in the evening of 25.5.2010 in Saket area to
deliver the money. It is alleged that pursuant to the said criminal
conspiracy, accused Sanjay Singh carried Rs. 80 Lakhs against the
demanded amount to a place near A.P.J. School, Saket in the evening
of 25.5.2010. The raiding party was waiting for the passing of money.
Accused V.N.Singh, after collecting the money, managed to escape but
accused Sanjay Singh was apprehended at the spot. Accused
V.N.Singh was arrested in the evening of 26.5.2010 and cash of Rs.80
Lakhs was recovered. Accused M.P.Dixit and accused Vijender Singh
were arrested at Bilaspur and accused S.K.Samanta was arrested at
New Delhi.
During interrogation, accused Vijender Singh disclosed that Ram
Avtar Aggarwal and Bajrang Aggarwal, partners of M/s. Maruti Clean
Coal Benefications (P) Limited, Bilaspur had asked him to arrange their
meeting with M.P.Dixit and in the said meeting, they offered to pay a
bribe of Rs. 1 Crore to M.P.Dixit for helping in allotment of a rail-road
siding to them for loading of coal. Accused Sanjay Singh disclosed that
he is an employee of M/s. Bombay Talkies and is the Manager of the
said firm. Sh. Navin Sharma and Sh. Vinod Bahl, employees of Bajrang
Aggarwal and Ram Avtar Aggarwal had given him Rs.80 Lakhs with the
direction to deliver said money to one Vikram.
Shri D.C. Mathur, Sr. Advocate appearing for the accused Vijender
Singh in Bail Application No.1060/2010, Shri K.T. S. Tulsi, Sr. Advocate
appearing for the accused Surojit Samanta in Bail Application
No.1063/2010, Shri Kailash Vasudev, Sr. Advocate appearing for the
accused Sanjay Singh in Bail Application No.1128/2010 and Shri Ajay
Burman, Advocate appearing for the accused V.N. Singh in Bail
Application No.1064/2010 have argued on similar lines. It is submitted
on behalf of above referred accused persons that they are not public
servants and none of them is either the bribe giver or bribe taker.
Learned counsels pointed out that as per the case of the prosecution,
the alleged bribe was meant for accused M.P. Dixit, Managing Director-
cum-Chairperson of SECL, a public sector undertaking and the bribe
was allegedly given on behalf of the partners of Maruti Coal Clean
Benefications (P) Ltd. The role ascribed to the above referred accused
persons is that they participated and facilitated passing of money from
the bribe givers meant for delivering to Shri M.P. Dixit. It is submitted
that the above referred accused persons have been in custody for
more than 50 days and their presence is no more required for the
purpose of investigation, as such no purpose shall be served by
keeping them in custody during the investigation and trial of this case.
It is also argued that the only evidence collected so far against the
accused persons is their disclosure statements, which are inadmissible
in evidence, being the confessional statements made to the police.
Shri Yudhishtar Karol appearing for the accused M.P. Dixit in Bail
Application No.1070/2010 has submitted that the entire case of the
prosecution is based upon suspicion and the disclosure statements
made by the accused persons which are inadmissible in evidence. He
submitted that as per the case of the prosecution, the money
transaction took place on 25.05.2010 at Saket, New Delhi, whereas
M.P. Dixit was not even present in Delhi on the relevant day. Thus, it
is argued that the prosecution has not been able to link the aforesaid
money with M.P. Dixit, as such he is entitled to bail. It is further
submitted that accused M.P. Dixit is in custody for the last more than
50 days and his presence is no more required for the purpose of
investigation. Thus, he is entitled to bail "as bail not jail" is the general
rule. Learned counsel also submitted that M.P. Dixit has roots in the
society and there is no possibility of his absconding or tampering with
the evidence.
Ms. Sonia Mathur, Advocate for the CBI has vehemently opposed
the bail applications. She submitted that there is sufficient evidence
on record to prima facie show the involvement of the five accused
persons in the crime. There are transcripts of the telephone
conversations between the respective accused persons which clearly
show that the bribe was actually demanded by the accused M.P. Dixit
and the money seized at Delhi was actually meant for payment of
illegal gratification to the accused M.P. Dixit for showing favours by
abuse of his official position.
I have considered the rival contentions. The applicant accused
persons have been arrested for having committed the offence under
Section 120B IPC as well as Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act for which offences, the maximum punishment is up to 5
years imprisonment, besides fine. Accused persons were arrested on
25.05.2010 and 26.05.2010, meaning thereby they are in custody for
the last more than 50 days. As per the case of the prosecution, the
bribe money has been recovered. Accused persons have already been
remanded to judicial custody, which implies that their presence is no
longer required for the purpose of investigation. During the course of
argument, it was submitted on behalf of the accused persons that the
charge sheet is not likely to be filed within 60 days and in that
eventuality the accused persons shall become entitled to release on
bail in view of the proviso to Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. The Investigating
Officer, when asked if there was any likelihood of filing of charge sheet
before the expiry of 60 days, fairly admitted that charge sheet is not
likely to be filed within 60 days of the arrest of the accused persons as
sufficient background investigation is yet to be conducted.
Keeping in view the aforesaid circumstances and the nature of
the offence, without going into the veracity of the evidence collected
so far, I find no purpose in keeping the accused persons in detention
during the investigation and trial of this case. I accordingly direct the
respective accused persons to be released on bail on their furnishing
personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each with one surety in the
like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court, subject to the
condition that the accused persons shall join the investigation as and
when required and they shall not leave the country without the
permission of the court.
Bail Applications are disposed of accordingly.
Copy of the order be given Dasti.
(AJIT BHARIHOKE)
JUDGE
July 16, 2010
akb/pst
