Delhi High Court
Vinod Kumar Gupta vs Central Burau Of Investigation on 6 February, 2012
Author: Suresh Kait
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN.1816/2011 & Crl.M.B.No.2226/2011
% Judgment reserved on : 24th January, 2012
Judgment delivered on: 06th February, 2012
VINOD KUMAR GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr.S.S.Gandhi, Senior Advocate
with Mohd Ehraz Zafar, Adv
versus
CENTRAL BURAU OF INVESTIGATION ..... Respondent
Through : Mr.P.K. Sharma Standing Counsel
with Mr.Uday Prakash Yadav, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J.
1. Before entering the arena of matrixlogy of instant matter, it
would be in the fitness of things to make it clear that the facts and law
in detail have been deliberated in the connected Bail Application
No.1698/2011 of applicant Syed Nizam Ahmed, which are not being
repeated.
2. The present petition is being filed by the applicant being
aggrieved against the order dated 25.11.2011 passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Central District, Delhi whereby his bail
application was rejected.
3. Mr. S. S. Gandhi, learned Senior Advocate has submitted that
the petitioner was appointed as joint managing director (export) of the
company - ZMPL with effect from 01.03.2004. It is submitted that in
his acceptance for appointment of joint managing director (export), the
petitioner sent communication dated 06.03.2004 which inter alia,
contains following terms and conditions:-
"a) That my appointment shall be as Jt. Managing
Director (Exports) for the export services to be
rendered by me for getting export orders.
b) That I shall not be responsible for any
difference in actual supply vs contracted grade/
quality/ quantity of the material since the same has
to be ensured at your end irrespective of contract
executed for FOB/CNF/FOR basis. My
responsibility will be to get export orders for the
company and you have to ensure the quality,
quantity and timely shipment/delivery of material
as per contract and shipment terms.
c) That I shall finalise the terms of contract, letter
of credit and pricing with buyers with your prior
consent. I shall not be responsible for any loss, if
any incurs, by the company in the process of
transacting business.
d) That I shall not be involved in any financial
matter of the company and operating bank
account/(s).
e) All the financial matter and operation of bank
account/(s) shall be handled at your end."
4. Learned Senior Advocate has relied upon the Annexure I at page
No.150 placed in connected Bail Application No.1698/2011 wherein
detailed payment made by NAFED to ZMPL with all the payments
have been credited at Bhuvneshwar, therefore, petitioner is not liable
for any of the offence as alleged by the prosecution as the petitioner is
operating from Delhi.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner has referred to Annexure A-5,
placed at page No.59 of the paper book, wherein inter alia it is
recorded as under:-
"Resolved that Mr.Javed Sultan is hereby
appointed as chief executive officer of M/s.Zenith
Mining Pvt Ltd. Shadaab, Tulasipur, /Cuttack and
is authorised to look after the procurement of
exportable quality Iron Ore Fines, negotiations of
rate with the material suppliers and their payment,
to appoint stevedores, agents, analysts to sign
customs documents and other statutory papers
exclusively for Export of Iron Ore Fines. He is also
authorised to deal with NAFED at their head office
at New Delhi and branches, to keep co-ordination
with JMD, New Delhi regarding shipping
schedules."
6. Therefore, learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that
aforesaid Javed Sultan was looking after the procurement of the
exportable quality IOF, negotiations of rate with mater suppliers and
their payment, however, petitioner has nothing to do with the present
case.
7. He further submitted that petitioner was arrested on 26.09.2011,
since then he is in custody.
8. On the other hand, Mr. P. K. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel
for CBI submitted that the agreement dated 16.03.2004 has been signed
by the petitioner on behalf of the company, therefore, he had all
knowledge of the agreement. Another agreement dated 12.02.2004
was also signed by him, therefore, it is a game of blame shifting of
liability to each other. The charge-sheet has already been filed against
all the accused persons. Granting bail to the petitioner is not proper at
this stage. The prosecuting agency is still at an advanced stage of
further investigation as the trail of the money has to be established and
if necessity arises, supplementary charge-sheet would be filed.
Therefore, by admitting the applicant to bail may fatal to the
investigating agency as he may tamper with the evidence and influence
the witnesses. The CMD of the company has put all the blames on
petitioner as he is the main culprit. Huge public money has been
misappropriated in this case.
9. As I have noted at the outset of the order passed in Bail
application No.1698/2011 of co-accused Syed Nizam Ahmed v. CBI,
the factual matrix and case law relied upon from both sides are not
being repeated in the present order.
10. In Sanjay Chandra(supra) and Suresh Kalmadi(supra) accused
persons were remained in custody for more than 08 months; whereas
petitioner has just completed three months. Investigation is still
pending, therefore, both above decisions are not of any help to the
petitioner, in the facts and circumstances of the present case. It is
settled proposition of law in various dictums of the Apex Court that
there is no hard and fast rule of precedents and every case has to be
seen entirely in facts and circumstances.
11. Therefore, I am not inclined to admit the applicant to bail at this
stage, especially when the charges are yet to be framed against him and
matter is not tracked for trial.
12. Accordingly, Bail Application No.1816/2011 is dismissed.
13. Before parting with the present order, it is made clear that
nothing observed herein shall amount to an observation on the merits
of the case, as still it is pending adjudication before learned Trial
Court.
14. In view of above, Crl.M.B.No.2226/2011 does not require any
further adjudication and stands disposed of as such.
15. No order as to costs.
SURESH KAIT, J
FEBRUARY 06, 2012
Mk
