Dr. Kewal Krishna Sood vs Central Bureau Of Investigation
2013 Latest Caselaw 5140 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                 BAIL APPLN. 1762/2013


                                       Reserved on:         21.11.2013
                                       Date of decision:    11.12.2013

IN THE MATTER OF:
DR. KEWAL KRISHNA SOOD                             ..... Petitioner
                   Through: Mr. Karan Pal Singh, Advocate

                          versus

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION                  ..... Respondent
                    Through: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, Spl. PP for the
                    CBI with Ms. Nidhi Sharma, Advocate



CORAM
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

HIMA KOHLI, J.

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under

Section 439 Cr.PC for grant of bail in case FIR

No.RC.BD1/2009/E/0019 entitled CBI vs. Dr. Kewal Krishna Sood and

Others registered under Sections 420/467/468/471/120-B/34 IPC by

the CBI at New Delhi.

2. The allegations against the petitioner, who is the promoter of a

company by the name of M/s Raghubir Hospital Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter

referred to as 'the hospital'), are that he had dishonestly availed of a

term loan of ₹6.50 crores from the State Bank of India (SBI),

Commercial Branch, New Delhi for the purpose of setting up a 150

bedded hospital at Ghaziabad, UP, by submitting forged proforma

invoices and receipts issued by a medical company by the name of M/s

Gaurav Medical Equipments. Between 01.03.2007 to 15.06.2007, the

bank had disbursed the term loan to the tune of ₹5.63 crores to the

hospital and a substantial part of the loan amount had been disbursed

for purchasing two machines namely, C.T. Scan system for ₹1.19

crores and MRI system for ₹2.44 crores. However, in March, 2009,

when the bank officers visited the office of M/s Gaurav Medical

Equipments, it transpired that there was no such company operating

from the given address and nor was there any clue about its

whereabouts.

3. As per the prosecution, the loan disbursement made by the bank

in the name of M/s Gaurav Medical Equipments was routed through a

bank account of the said firm that had been opened by the petitioner

as a proprietor of the said firm, with a bank at Ghaziabad and upon

receiving the funds into this account, the same had been siphoned off

by him for personal gain. Similarly, the amounts that had been

disbursed by the SBI between 01.03.2007 to 20.03.2007 in favour of a

construction company, namely, M/s Anubhav Construction Co. were

deposited in an account opened by the said firm with the very same

bank at Ghaziabad and the petitioner's son, Shri Anubhav Sood turned

out to be the proprietor of the said company and the authorized

signatory of the said bank account, which had been introduced by the

petitioner himself. Thus, the investigations revealed that both the

aforesaid firms were non-existent and were not registered with the

Sales Tax Department, Ghaziabad.

4. A perusal of the charge-sheet reveals that the present case was

registered by the respondent/CBI on the basis of a written complaint

received from the SBI regarding the alleged fraud of ₹6.44 crores.

After the investigations were concluded, the FIR came to be registered

on 16.09.2009 and the charge-sheet was filed on 16.11.2010. The

charge-sheet had named the petitioner herein as accused No.1, the

hospital as accused No.2, Mr. Anubhav Sood (the petitioner's son) as

accused No.3 and Shri Hemant Sharma, an employee of the petitioner,

as accused No.4. Charges were framed against the accused persons on

08.11.2012. The prosecution had cited forty one witnesses and out of

the said list, ten of the witnesses were public witnesses. Recording of

the prosecution evidence had commenced on 03.12.2012 and as on

date, twelve witnesses have been examined.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the

pendency of the trial, the petitioner had filed applications for grant of

bail before the trial court on different occasions but all the said

applications had been turned down, the last rejection order having

been passed by the learned ASJ on 02.09.2013 (Annexure P-3). He

stated that the petitioner had been arrested on 28.10.2010 and by

now, he has remained in judicial custody for over three years. As for

his vocation and background, learned counsel submitted that the

petitioner is a doctor by profession and he was practicing at Ghaziabad

for the past twenty five years, his wife had expired in the year 1992,

he has two children, one of them being accused No.3 in the charge

sheet, who was a juvenile at the relevant point in time and had been

acquitted by the Juvenile Justice Board. The petitioner's son is now

working in a private establishment and is residing at Noida. The

second issue of the petitioner is a daughter, who is a college student

and is residing at a hostel. To substantiate his submissions that the

petitioner has deep roots in the society, learned counsel submitted

that he has one brother and two sisters. While his brother is stated to

be a businessman running two factories in Ghaziabad, his one sister is

married to a doctor, who is posted in and residing in Ghaziabad and

the second sister is also married to a doctor.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further pointed out that on

13.9.2013, a supplementary charge-sheet has been filed by the

respondent/CBI in which one more person, Shri J.P. Singh has been

named as an accused. Alongwith the supplementary charge-sheet, the

prosecution has cited sixteen more witnesses. He had submitted that

the case was listed before the Special Judge, CBI on 24.10.2013 for

arguments on the supplementary charge-sheet and for obtaining

clarifications from the CBI with regard to the involvement of some

officers of the SBI and it shall take a long time for the evidence to

recommence after the trial court hears the arguments on charge

against the accused No.5 on the basis of the supplementary charge-

sheet and passes an order.

7. It was thus urged that the petitioner's vocation, his

antecedents, family background and social circumstance amply

demonstrate that he has deep roots in the society and is unlikely to

evade the legal process or fail to turn up during the course of the trial

and further in view of the fact that the supplementary charge-sheet

has been filed by the respondent/CBI as recently as in September,

2013, it is apparent that it shall take a long time for the trial to

conclude and in this duration, the petitioner cannot be detained in

judicial custody as it amounts to infringement of his personal liberty

under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In support of his

submissions, learned counsel had relied on the decisions of the

Supreme Court in the cases of R.D. Upadhyay vs. State of Andhra

Pradesh and Ors., reported as (2000) 10 SCC 255 and Sanjay

Chandra vs. CBI, reported as (2012) 1 SCC 40.

8. Learned Special PP for the respondent/CBI had opposed the bail

application and referred to the Status Report filed by the CBI to urge

that the petitioner has committed a serious economic offence by

obtaining disbursements from the SBI on the basis of forged invoices

of supplier companies and has cheated the bank by diverting the term

loan funds for purposes other than those for which it was sanctioned.

She stated that the petitioner has withdrawn an amount of

`4,61,50,500/- out of the disbursement of ₹5.63 crores and during the

pendency of the case, he had submitted forged property documents to

the SBI knowing very well that the said immovable property had

already been mortgaged with some other banks, from whom he had

availed credit facilities. Lastly, it was stated that if he is released on

bail, there is every likelihood of the petitioner tampering with the

evidence or fleeing from the country.

9. The Court has perused the charge-sheet, considered the status

report filed by the CBI and heard the arguments advanced by the

counsels for the parties. As has been repeatedly held in a number of

judicial pronouncements, the principal object of bail is to secure the

attendance of the accused at the trial and ensure that he does not flee

from justice. At the same time, an accused must not be deprived of

his personal liberty and held in custody during trial in anticipation of

his conviction unless the interest of the society demands otherwise or

there is material to show that he will use his liberty to subvert justice

or tamper with the evidence.

10. It is an undisputed position that in the present case, the

investigation has already been completed and two sets of charge-

sheets have been filed. The first charge-sheet was filed by the CBI

against the petitioner and three other accused on 16.11.2010 and a

supplementary charge-sheet came to be filed against another accused

on 13.09.2013. Charges in respect of the first charge sheet were

framed against the petitioner vide order dated 08.11.2012 and out of

forty one witnesses cited by the prosecution in the first list of

witnesses, twelve witnesses have already been examined before the

Special Judge, CBI. At that stage, a supplementary charge-sheet came

to be filed by the CBI on 13.9.2013 and alongwith the said charge-

sheet, sixteen additional witnesses have been cited. Now the case is

stated to be at the stage of arguments on charge in respect of the

supplementary charge-sheet and for furnishing clarifications with

regard to involvement of some officers of the SBI.

11. The nominal roll of the petitioner was called for by the court. As

per the said nominal roll, the petitioner was taken into judicial custody

on 28.10.2010 and as on 12.11.2013, the period undergone by him as

an undertrial was three years, fourteen days. By now, the petitioner

would have remained in judicial custody for a period of three years and

one and a half months.

12. The petitioner' son has filed an affidavit detailing inter alia the

family details and the professional background of the petitioner. The

court has considered the petitioner's social and financial background

that reveals that he has roots in the society, having been a medical

practitioner at Ghaziabad for the past 25 years, and has a family

comprising of a son and a daughter. Learned counsel for the

petitioner had submitted that if released on bail, the petitioner shall

reside with his son at Noida and be available on each and every date

of hearing of the case. It is a matter of record that a supplementary

charge-sheet has been filed by the CBI in September 2013 and the

prosecution has added sixteen more witnesses to its original list of

forty one witnesses and only twelve witnesses have been examined till

date. The trial has been stalled for the present as the trial court shall

first hear arguments on charge in respect of the accused No.5 named

in the supplementary charge sheet. It therefore does not appear that

the trial shall conclude expeditiously.

13. The nature of the documentary evidence gathered by the

prosecution in the course of the investigation reveals that most of the

said documents relate to banking transactions, which are already in

the custody of the prosecution and as the transactions involved in the

present case are banking transactions, most of the witnesses cited by

the prosecution are officers from different banks and government

departments. In such circumstances, there is little likelihood of the

petitioner being able to use his influence over the said witnesses or

tamper with the evidence.

14. Except for expressing an apprehension, no specific incident of

threat extended by the petitioner or his family members to any of the

witnesses or of tampering with the evidence has been levelled against

him. This Court is therefore of the opinion that the petitioner having

remained in judicial custody for over three years and a supplementary

charge-sheet having been filed by the prosecution as recently as in

September 2013, there does not appear any possibility of the trial

being concluded in the very near future.

15. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is

admitted to bail subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of

`1 lac with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of

the trial court and subject to the following conditions:-

(i) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any

inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the

facts or the case so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts to

the Court or to any other authority.

(ii) The petitioner shall remain present before the Court on the dates

fixed for hearing of the case. If he proposes to remain absent on

any date, then he shall take prior permission of the court and in

case of unavoidable circumstances for remaining absent, he shall

immediately give intimation to the appropriate court and request

that he may be permitted to be present through the counsel.

(iii) He will not dispute his identity as the accused in the case.

(iv) He shall surrender his passport, if any (if not already

surrendered), and in case he is not a holder of the same, he

shall swear an affidavit to that effect before the learned Special

Judge, CBI.

16. If the petitioner violates any of the conditions of bail, then the

respondent/CBI is at liberty to approach the Court for seeking

cancellation of the bail order.

17. The petition is disposed of.

DASTI.

                                                       (HIMA KOHLI)
                                                           JUDGE
DECEMBER     11, 2013
rkb