Delhi High Court
Anand Tewari vs Cbi on 19 October, 2012
Author: P.K.Bhasin
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% BAIL APPL. NO. 1435/2012
+ Date of Decision: 19th October, 2012
# ANAND TEWARI ....Appellant
! Through: Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Madhav, Advocate
Versus
$ CBI ...Respondent
Through: Mr. Manoj Ohri, Spl. P.P. with
Mr. Manoj Pant, Advocate with
Inspector A.J. Bajpai
CORAM:
* HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.BHASIN
ORDER
P.K.BHASIN, J:
The petitioner-accused had filed this application for his
release on bail in this case, in which the allegations against him
were that he along with his co-accused, who already stands
released on bail because of the failure of the CBI to file charge-
sheet against him within the prescribed period of 90 days from the
date of his arrest, were the Directors of one Company by the name
of M/s. Mahua Media Pvt. Ltd. and in conspiracy with each other
they had defrauded many banks of over thousand crores of rupees
by submitting forged documents while availing financial facilities
from the banks.
In the bail application it had been stated by the petitioner that
there was no substance in the allegations levelled against him and,
therefore, he was entitled to be released on bail and also that he
was suffering from liver cirrhosis because of which he had become
extremely fragile and his condition had, in fact, deteriorated during
his detention in jail.
However, at the time of hearing of this bail application, Mr.
Ramesh Gupta, learned senior counsel for the petitioner did not
urge anything on merits of the case nor pressed into service serious
sickness of the petitioner. However, a submission was made that
though the co-accused P.K. Tiwari had been released on bail
under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. the petitioner should also be released
on bail since at the time of the hearing of the bail application of the
co-accused P.K. Tiwari before the Sessions Court the CBI had
submitted that charge-sheet was not likely to be filed within the
statutory period of 90 days and since in the case of the petitioner
that statutory period of 90 days is going to expire within a period
of about 14 days and there is no chance of CBI filing charge-sheet
in Court within that period. It was also submitted that the
petitioner would also be released under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.
with his co-accused but that relief could not be given to him as he
was out from jail for 15 days on interim bail. Mr. Gupta placed
reliance on some bail orders passed by this Court including one
order in which this Court had granted bail to the accused taking
into consideration the fact that there was no likelihood of the
investigating agency filing charge-sheet within the statutory period
which was going to expire after 13 days. That bail order is
reported as 2003(3) Crimes 401, Ánurag Vardhan Vs. Central
Bureau of Investigation".
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner had drawn my
attention to the reply filed by the CBI to the bail application of co-
accused P.K. Tiwari before the Sessions Court. A perusal of the
reply would show that the CBI had stated therein that even though
the investigation conducted clearly reflected the role played by the
accused but investigation was going on to find out the involvement
of bank employees who could be responsible for the disbursal of
loans to the Company of the petitioner and his co-accused on the
basis of forged documents.
From the CBI's reply it becomes apparent that as far as the
allegations levelled against the petitioner and his co-accused P.K.
Tiwari are concerned, the CBI has already collected enough
material against them. However, it is continuing its investigation
to find out if any bank employees were also involved in the grant
of loans to the Company of the petitioner and his co-accused
without due diligence in order to favour them. That exercise of
course will take time but it cannot be said at this stage that within
the remaining statutory period for completion of investigation the
CBI will not file its charge-sheet against the petitioner.
In case the CBI decides not to file the charge-sheet within the
statutory period against the petitioner-accused despite the fact that
it is claiming that the investigation which already stands conducted
is sufficient to start the prosecution of the accused only in order to
find out the involvement of any public servants also in the crimes
which the petitioner and his co-accused are alleged to have
committed, the petitioner-accused only then would be entitled to
claim the benefit under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. In any case, before
this Court the CBI counsel did not state that charge-sheet shall not
be filed within the remaining prescribed period. This application
is, therefore, dismissed.
P.K.BHASIN,J
October 19, 2012
