Delhi High Court
Sanjeev Saxena vs State on 16 November, 2011
Author: M. L. Mehta
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 14.11.2011
Pronounced on: 16.11.2011
+ BAIL APPLN. 1510/2011
ASHOK ARGAL ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv.
with Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia,
Adv.
Versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Pawan Sharma, Standing
Counsel with Ms Laxmi
Chauhan and Mr. Harish
Prabhaker, Advocates.
Ms Fizani Husain, APP
and Ms Jasbir Kaur, APP
DCP Ashok Chand, ACP
Rajendra Bakshi, Crime
Branch Ms Madhu Sharma for
respondent No. 2 & 3
+ BAIL APPLN. 1506/2011
MAHABIR SINGH BHAGORA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Sr. Adv.
with Mr. Bhupender Yadav,
Mr. Abhay Verma and Ms
Amrita Prakash, Advocates.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Pawan Sharma, Standing
Counsel with Ms Laxmi
Chauhan and Mr. Harish
Prabhaker, Advocates.
Ms Fizani Husain, APP
and Ms Jasbir Kaur, APP
DCP Ashok Chand, ACP
Rajendra Bakshi, Crime
Branch
+ BAIL APPLN. 1507/2011
SOHAIL HINDUSTANI ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Rajiv Nayyar, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Ajay Digpaul and Ms
Neeru Gupta, Advocates.
Bail Appln. 1506-11, 1507-11, 1508-11, 1509-11, 1510-11 & 1563-11 Page 1 of 9
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Pawan Sharma, Standing
Counsel with Ms Laxmi
Chauhan and Mr. Harish
Prabhaker, Advocates.
Ms Fizani Husain, APP
and Ms Jasbir Kaur, APP
DCP Ashok Chand, ACP
Rajendra Bakshi, Crime
Branch
+ BAIL APPLN. 1508/2011
SUDHEENDRA KULKARNI ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Mahipal Ahluwali withMr.
Shubhashis Parik Soren,
Advocates.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Pawan Sharma, Standing
Counsel with Ms Laxmi
Chauhan and Mr. Harish
Prabhaker, Advocates.
Ms Fizani Husain, APP
and Ms Jasbir Kaur, APP
DCP Ashok Chand, ACP
Rajendra
Bakshi, Crime Branch
+ BAIL APPLN. 1509/2011
FAGGAN SINGH KULASTE ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. Adv.
with Mr. Anil Soni, Mr.
Vishrov Mukherjee, Mr.
Shivam Chaudhary
and Mr. Nitin Kaushal,
Advocates.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Bail Appln. 1506-11, 1507-11, 1508-11, 1509-11, 1510-11 & 1563-11 Page 2 of 9
Through Mr. Pawan Sharma, Standing
Counsel with Ms Laxmi
Chauhan and Mr. Harish
Prabhaker, Advocates.
Ms Fizani Husain, APP
and Ms Jasbir Kaur, APP
DCP Ashok Chand, ACP
Rajendra Bakshi, Crime
Branch
+ BAIL APPLN. 1563/2011
SANJEEV SAXENA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr Ajay Burman, Adv.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Pawan Sharma, Standing
Counsel with Ms Laxmi
Chauhan and Mr. Harish
Prabhaker, Advocates.
Ms Fizani Husain, APP
and Ms Jasbir Kaur, APP
DCP Ashok Chand, ACP Rajendra
Bakshi, Crime Branch
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest ? Yes
M.L. MEHTA, J.
1. By this common order, I shall dispose of anticipatory bail
petition of petitioner Ashok Argal under section 438 Cr. P.C. and
regular bail petitions of the petitioners Mahavir Singh Bhagora,
Sohail Hindustani, Sudheendra Kulkarni, Faggan Singh Kulaste
and Sanjeev Saxena under section 439 Cr.P.C.
2. FIR No. 14/2009 under section 7/8/12/13(1)(d) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act read with section 120-B IPC came to
be registered at Police Station Crime Branch against the present
petitioners. All petitioners except petitioner Ashok Argal are in
Judicial Custody.
3. For better understanding some relevant facts can be
mentioned. A special session of Lok Sabha was to be convened
on 21.07.2008 by the Prime Minister to seek the trust of the
House. There were media reports that there is going to be large
scale defections from non-UPA parties at the centre and talk was
going on that there is going to be horse-trading. On the day of
debate on the motion of confidence in the council of Ministers, the
petitioners Ashok Argal, Mahavir Singh Bhagora and Faggan
Singh Kulaste came to the Lok Sabha with two bags of currency
notes which they took out and started placing on the table of the
House. The Hon'ble Speaker took note of the complaints made by
the Members regarding alleged offer of money to them in
connection with voting in the Motion of Confidence. He had
assured the leaders to look into the matter. Subsequently, on
25.07.2008, these three MPS made a joint statement before the
Hon'ble Speaker wherein they stated as to the manner of their
having been approached by intermediaries of power brokers and
their having decided to expose the mastermind of Cash for Vote
racket. The CNN-IBN News Channel designed a whistle blowing
sting operation. The petitioners Sudheendra Kulkarni and Suhail
Hindustani were also associated in the string operation. The
petitioner Sanjeev Saxena gave ` 1.00 crore to each of three
petitioners MPs. The entire episode was recorded by CNN-IBN
News Channel team on camera at the residence of petitioner
Ashok Argal. On the same day, i.e. on 22.07.2008 at about 4 pm,
the petitioner MPs took out the bag and displayed the money in
the House of the Parliament. It was in this background that the
Hon'ble Speaker, Lok Sabha, appointed an Inquiry Committee. All
petitioners have been charge-sheeted under different provisions
of PC Act read with Section 120B of IPC.
4. I have heard learned Senior Counsels for the petitioners and
also the learned Standing Counsel for the State. Before
proceeding to take note of the submissions of learned counsels
for the petitioners, it may be stated that learned Standing
Counsel for the State stated having no objection to the grant of
regular bail to all the petitioners who are in Judicial Custody. With
regard to petitioner Ashok Argal, it was stated by the learned
Standing Counsel that since he is participating in the investigation
and his custodial interrogation was not required, the State had no
objection to his release on anticipatory bail. Despite this
submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for the State,
the learned Senior Counsels for the petitioners desired to submit
on the merits of the case of each petitioner.
5. It was the common submission of learned counsels for the
petitioners that there is nothing on record to show that there was
any mens rea on the part of any of the petitioners to conspire
with each other or with the bribe givers to accept bribe. The
learned Senior Counsels for the petitioners submitted that the
motive of this entire episode was to expose the horse-trading
which was to take place in the Trust Motion in the Parliament.
That being the only motive of the petitioners, the organizing of
sting operation could not be described as criminal conspiracy.
Apparently, there does not appear to be any reason to disagree
with the learned counsels for the petitioners. If there was any
conspiracy between the petitioners, inter se or with bribe givers,
they would not have associated themselves with the CNN-IBN
News Channel and exposed themselves to the act of taking
money before the camera. I have gone through the entire
voluminous charge-sheet, but could not find any prima facie
evidence on record of demand and acceptance of illegal
gratification by the three MPs. The submission of learned
counsels for the petitioners that since it was to be a sting
operation, the matter could not have been reported to the police
or any authority is also worth considering and has its own merit.
Further, admittedly, there was neither any tampering nor editing
in the video/audio recording done by the CNN-IBN team. This fact
was so confirmed by the report of CFSL. None of the petitioners
was beneficiary of the amount received by the three MPs from
petitioner Sanjeev Saxena. In fact, it was the prosecution's own
case that the MPs did this act to entrap Congress and Samajwadi
Party so as to expose them. If the intention of the petitioner MPs
was to receive bribe, they would have done so and kept the
amount so received silently instead of producing the same in
Parliament immediately thereafter. If, that was so, even according
to the prosecution the basic requirement of mens rea to accept
and receive bribe so as to (bring it) within the ambit of Prevention
of Corruption Act was lacking on the part of all the petitioners. All
the star witnesses of the prosecution in their statements under
section 161 Cr. P.C have stated this incident to be string
operation and none of them has stated acceptance of illegal
gratification by the petitioner MPs.
6. The Parliament itself was supreme and competent enough
to take action against its Members. If there was any such
allegation of acceptance of illegal gratification by the three MPs, it
would have taken some action against them. Admittedly, no
action was taken by the Parliament except that of appointing a
Parliamentary Inquiry Committee. It is noted that some of the
members of the Inquiry Committee have also given dissenting
views with regard to the recommendation of initiation of action
against the petitioners.
7. With regard to petitioner Sudheendra Kulkarni, it may be
noted that he was not a public servant and he was neither the
giver or the taker of money and was also not present at the time
of alleged negotiations. His role is of introducing MPs petitioners
and CNN-IBN team and thus his role was similar to that of the
team of CNN-IBN against which there is no charge of any kind.
The role of petitioner Sohail Hindustani was that of a whistle-
blower and engineering string operation.
8. With regard to petitioner Sanjeev Saxena, it may be noted
that his role, prima facie, appeared to be that of carrier or courier.
He was not beneficiary of the amounts paid to the three MPs. He
is in JC since 17.07.2011 and investigation in the matter is
complete and his custodial interrogation is admittedly no more
required.
9. In view of all this, all the petitioners who are in jail namely
Faggan Singh Kulaste, Mahabir Singh Bhagora, Sudheendra
Kulkarni, Suhail Hindustani and Sanjeev Saxena are entitled to be
released on bail. Consequently, these petitioners are directed to
be released on bail on their furnishing personal bond in the sum
of `2.00 lakh each with one surety each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the court concerned. Similarly, petitioner Ashok
Argal who was admittedly participating in the investigation and
his custodial interrogation was not required, is also entitled to be
granted anticipatory bail. Consequently, it is directed that in the
event of his arrest, petitioner Ashok Argal shall be released on
anticipatory bail on his executing personal bond in the sum of
`2.00 lakh with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of
the IO/SHO concerned.
10. The bail granted to all the petitioners shall be subject to the
condition that they s hall join the investigation as and when
required by the Investigating Officer.
11. It is made clear that nothing contained in this order shall
amount to expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
12. The petitions stand disposed of.
13. Dasti.
M.L. MEHTA
(JUDGE)
November 16, 2011
awanish
