Gujarat High Court

Central Bureau Of Investigation ... vs State Of Gujarat on 23 September, 2022

Bench: Ashutosh J. Shastri

      R/CR.MA/15116/2017                         ORDER DATED: 23/09/2022




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

           R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 15116 of 2017

==================================================
  CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION THROUGH MCR MUKUND
                         Versus
               STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 other(s)
==================================================
Appearance:
MR RC KODEKAR(1395) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR HARDIK A DAVE(3764) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR.CHINTAN DAVE, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI

                           Date : 23/09/2022

                             ORAL ORDER

[1] The present application is filed by Central Bureau of

Investigation under Section 439(2) read with Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashment of the impugned

order dated 12.05.2017 passed by learned Special CBI Court

No.2, Judicial Complex, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Criminal Misc.

Application No.161 of 2017 whereby respondent No.2 has been

enlarged on regular bail.

[2] By filing this application within a short span upon grant of

bail, it has been asserted by the applicant that a criminal case

R/CR.MA/15116/2017 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2022

vide RC No.3(A)/2015 was registered by CBI/AC-III/New Delhi

on 22.09.2015 under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code

read with Sections 7, 12 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against an accused Mr.

Jitender Pratap Singh and others. As per the allegations

levelled in the complaint, one Mr. J.P.Singh, JD/ED, Gujarat has

been indulging in corrupt practices in Afroz Fatta Case and

Cricket Betting Case. It was also alleged that Mr.J.P.Singh was

being assisted by one Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Assistant Director, ED

in his alleged corrupt practices. It has further been alleged in

the complaint that Mr. J.P.Singh has taken huge amount of bribe

as quid pro quo for acts of omission and commission during

investigation of aforesaid ED cases and during the course of

investigation, ED made available the excerpts of information

received from a Central Agency to the effect that ED officers

namely Mr. J.P.Singh and Mr. Sanjay Kumar were indulging into

corrupt practices and were taking money directly but the

concerned victims were asked to get the money delivered to the

cutouts in Delhi and this modus operandi shared above prima

facie has been established during investigation as per the

R/CR.MA/15116/2017 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2022

applicant. It has further been alleged that Mr. J.P.Singh, the

then Joint Director, ED collected bribes through his conduits in

ECIR No.03/AMZO/2015 under PMLA 2002, which pertained to

IPL Betting Matter. Mr. Bimal Agrawal and Mr. Sonu Y. Jalan of

Mumbai were acting as conduits for Mr. J.P.Singh during the

relevant period and were collecting huge amount of money from

bookies and punters in IPL matter. They both visited Delhi time

and again during April, 2015 to September, 2015 and with the

help and assistance of one another accused Mr. J.K. Arora, Dehli

based bookie contacted various bookies/punters whose names

were already figured in the ECIR/Case investigated by ED under

PMLA, 2002 in Cricket Betting Matter to collect money for

protecting them from ED through accused Mr. J.P.Singh.

[2.1] It has been further asserted in the application that during

the course of investigation, it is revealed that the money

collected by the conduits on behalf of Mr. J.P.Singh in the name

of protection from ED case was routed to different places for its

end use investment. It has further been revealed that Mr.

Dhruv Kumar Singh of Lucknow, another co-accused received

R/CR.MA/15116/2017 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2022

ill-gotten money on behalf of Mr. J.P.Singh routed through

Angarias. During the investigation, it has been further revealed

that an amount of Rs.50 lakhs were got transferred through an

Angaria to Mr. Dhruv Kumar Singh during the month of July,

2015 and as such this ill-gotten money was routed on the

instructions of present respondent No.2 accused i.e. Mr. Bimal

Ramgopal Agarwal and another accused Mr. Sonu Y. Jalan, who

both were acting on behalf of Mr. J.P.Singh as conduits. Even,

the digital evidence i.e. Call Details Records, SMSs and

Whatsapp messages has further revealed that the accused Mr.

J.P.Singh and present respondent No.2 Mr. Bimal Ramgopal

Agarwal were in constant touch. They exchanged several

information about the Cricket Betting Case and a clinching

evidence is secured during the investigation to establish the

nexus of present respondent No.2 accused with Mr. J.P.Singh

and other accused

[2.2] According to the applicant present respondent accused i.e.

Mr. Bimal Agarwal was deliberately evading investigation right

from August, 2016 and his application for seeking anticipatory

R/CR.MA/15116/2017 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2022

bail was rejected by learned Special Judge for CBI case,

Ahmedabad on 28.11.2016 passed in Criminal Misc. Application

No.424/2016 and subsequently by the High Court of Gujarat on

11.01.2017 in Criminal Misc. Application No.33208/2016.

[2.3] According to applicant even regular bail also came to be

rejected by the learned Special Judge for CBI cases, Ahmedabad

on 06.03.2017 passed in Regular Bail Application No.56/2017

and later on yet another Regular Bail Application No.7612/2017

of present accused respondent Mr. Bimal Agarwal was also

dismissed as withdrawn by this Court on 18.04.2017.

[2.4] It is further the case of the applicant that after thorough

investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed in the learned

Trial Court, Ahmedabad on 19.04.2017 for the offences

punishable under Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code read

with Sections 7, 8, 9, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and in these substantive

offences the charge-sheet has been filed not only against

respondent No.2 Mr. Bimal Agarwal but other 9 accused

persons on the basis of sufficiency of material. It has further

R/CR.MA/15116/2017 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2022

been asserted that the case was also further investigated with

regard to other instances such as obtaining illegal gratification

and attempts from various bookies/punters and related issues

and further investigation is also continuing in Cricket betting

matter and Afroz Fatta matter. It has been asserted further in

the application that in such a situation the respondent No.2

moved a bail application No.161/2017 under Section 439 of the

Cr.P.C. before the learned trial court by submitting the same on

01.05.2017 and according to the applicant despite the same

being opposed by filing detailed reply by a brief order, the

learned Special Judge, CBI, Ahmedabad has granted the same

by way of an order dated 12.05.2017 which order is made the

subject matter of present application.

[3] It has been submitted that after the order being passed in

the month of May, 2017 the applicant has immediately moved

the Court by filing present application in the very next month

i.e. June, 2017 and after the notice being issued the matter

being adjourned from time to time, it has now come up for

consideration before this Court. Since both the sides have

R/CR.MA/15116/2017 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2022

submitted their respective pleadings, the matter is taken up for

hearing upon their requests.

[4] Mr. R. C. Kodekar, learned advocate appearing on behalf

of applicant has vehemently contended that in a serious offence

like this, when there is adequate material available which was

revealed during the course of investigation, the learned Special

Judge ought to have dealt with it properly by examining it in

proper perspective. Having not done so, the order clearly

reflects non application of mind. It has been further contended

by Mr. Kodekar, learned advocate that the material which has

been gathered during the course of investigation clearly

establishes key role of respondent herein. As such when such

material is very much available on record, the bail ought not to

have been granted, by brief order in mechanical exercise of

discretion.

[4.1] It has been vehemently contended that when the nature

and gravity of offence committed by respondent in connivance

of each other was effectively projected before the learned

Special Judge, the same ought to have been dealt with.

R/CR.MA/15116/2017 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2022

According to Mr. Kodekar, learned advocate this is a fit case

which has unequivocally prima facie established the material

against respondent No.2 - accused and looking to the gravity of

offence and systematic organized act of commission of crime

would sufficient enough not to enlarge the respondent on

regular bail. It has further contended that the learned Special

Judge has failed to appreciate that this respondent is also being

investigated by Mumbai Police in two other cases namely

EOWCR No.29/2012 and EOWCR No.23/2016 and therefore this

very accused - respondent No.2 is right from the beginning i.e.

from 2012 is indulged in such organized criminal activity which

circumstance is sufficient enough not to enlarge respondent

No.2 on bail. According to Mr. Kodekar, learned advocate there

has been enough material gathered during the course of

investigation which indicates that respondent - Mr. Bimal

Agarwal has acted as conduit of Mr. J.P.Singh and with the

assistance of other accused persons, has contacted various

bookies and punters who finalized the deals, obtained money in

the name of protection from ED and this modus operandi has

been unearthed during the course of investigation and as such,

R/CR.MA/15116/2017 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2022

this alleged organized activity ought to have been viewed

seriously when this respondent is involved in number of other

such cases.

[4.2] Mr. Kodekar, learned advocate has further submitted that

during the custodial interrogation, the respondent accused - Mr.

Bimal Agarwal was confronted with various crucial evidences

and after having knowledge of the same, it has been seriously

projected by the applicant before the Special Judge that there is

a possibility of influencing the witnesses and hampering the

process of further investigation. The learned Special Judge has

not appreciated such material aspect of tampering and

influencing the case of prosecution and as such when regular

bail was granted at such a crucial stage, such the discretion

ought not to have been exercised in a routine manner. It has

been contended that in addition to the other material, even

digital evidence was also sufficient enough to establish the

collection of illegal money by present respondent while acting

as a conduit of Mr. J.P.Singh. As such looking to the role of

respondent No.2 in connivance with other accused persons, it

R/CR.MA/15116/2017 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2022

clearly transpires that a large conspiracy is hatched by the

accused respondent in connivance with other accused persons.

The charge-sheet has been filed on the basis of cogent oral,

documentary and digital evidence which came to be surfaced

during the course of investigation. Such material, though

pointed out before the learned Special Judge but dealt with it by

routinely exercising the discretion and as such the order

requires to be interfered with. It has further been contended

that the learned Special Judge has failed to consider one more

material aspect that initially this very respondent did not join

the investigation and did not co-operate right from August, 2016

and was deliberately avoiding the investigation. So much so

that a look out notice was issued against this respondent Mr.

Bimal Agarwal and also initiated several steps by CBI for not

extending him a visa as there was a serious apprehension that

this respondent would flew out of country.

[4.3] Mr. Kodekar, learned advocate has further contended that

the learned Special Judge has also failed to consider that there

is a direct clenching digital evidence available against

R/CR.MA/15116/2017 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2022

respondent No.2 that he in connivance with another accused

has extorted an amount of Rs.3.25 crores from various bookies

and punters as protection money for settlement of their matter

with ED. To this conspiracy and taking of money, enough

material was available on record but the learned Special Judge

has unfortunately failed to consider the same. It has been

further contended that learned Special Judge has failed to

consider that there is no substantial change of circumstances

after his earlier bail being rejected. Mere filing of charge-sheet

cannot be termed as a change of circumstance and particularly

when there is more than enough material and clenching

evidence is available about the key role of respondent herein.

The learned Special Judge ought not to have erroneously

exercised the discretion. Mr. Kodekar, learned advocate has

further submitted that while granting bail, the learned Special

Judge ought to have considered the nature of accusation and

evidence, severity of punishment, possibility of influencing

witnesses and the larger public interest as well, but the learned

Special Judge has failed to consider the same. Hence, the order

passed in favour of respondent No.2 deserves to be quashed and

set aside.

R/CR.MA/15116/2017 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2022

[4.4] Mr. Kodekar, learned advocate has then vehemently

contended that during pendency of this proceeding, some

further material circumstances have been unearthed regarding

influencing the key witnesses of the prosecution and there is a

clear danger voiced out by learned advocate that continuance of

these accused persons on bail would definitely hamper the

proceedings and will prejudice the case of the prosecution. By

submitting a brief written note on 05.08.2020 after serving a

copy to the other side. Mr. Kodekar, learned advocate has

submitted that the sequence of events which has taken place

during the passage of time is also sufficient enough to indicate

that respondent No.2 does not deserve to be continued on bail.

Apart from the other material, which was already available on

record this sequence of events is also a supervening

circumstance by virtue of which the liberty extended to

respondent No.2 deserves to be curtailed. It has been

vehemently contended that after further investigation, even a

supplementary charge-sheet has been submitted on 28.10.2020

against respondent Mr. Bimal Agrawal. The main case is at the

R/CR.MA/15116/2017 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2022

stage of "arguments on charge" and at that stage one another

co-accused Mr. Chandresh Patel original accused No.8 whose

application was previously pending being Criminal Misc.

Application No.15118 of 2017 and the same was disposed of

since the said accused person had been discharged by the

learned trial judge vide order dated 22.09.2021, but against

which the Criminal Revision Application No.875 of 2021 was

filed and the same is pending before the High Court. In the

meantime, the accused Mr. J.P.Singh had filed a complaint on

27.03.2021 with CBC against the complainant Mr. Karnal Singh,

the then Director and one Mr. M.C.R. Mukund, Dy.S.P. / I.O. of

the case and along with this complaint he had enclosed a pen

drive containing audio / video conversation recorded by accused

Mr. Bimal Agarwal. The said complaint has been forwarded by

CBC to CBI for taking necessary steps and the CBI authorities

marked the same to CBI ACB, New Delhi and the same is

pending. On this circumstance, Mr. Kodekar, learned advocate

has submitted that respondent accused is out to influence the

witnesses which is wuite visible. It has been submitted that CBI

ACB, Delhi which marked in turn the complaint to CBI AC-VI

R/CR.MA/15116/2017 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2022

New Delhi for comments with regard to allegations made by Mr.

J.P.Singh related to commission or omission of Investigating

Officer in the case and the said complaint was received by CBI

AC-VI branch on 16.07.2019 and comments were also offered by

CBI AC-VI, New Delhi on 15.01.2020.

[4.5] By asserting this, Mr. Kodekar, learned advocate then

submitted that in the month of December, 2021 while preparing

the arguments against the discharge application which was filed

by accused persons, Mr. Chandresh Patel, the present deponent

who is the Investigating Officer of the case, stumbled upon the

file contained in the complaint of accused, Mr. J.P.Singh and

after the scrutiny of pen drive, it was revealed that accused Mr.

Bimal Agarwal has recorded his conversation with a key witness

P.W. 5 Mr. Manoj Jain and one other P.W. 7 Mr. Chirag Parikh

which clearly indicates that liberty is being misused by Mr.

Bimal Agarwal by conducting such exercise. This tantamounts

to be influencing the witnesses and having received such kind of

material, the applicant immediately had to file an application for

early hearing with transcript of recorded conversation. Having

R/CR.MA/15116/2017 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2022

noticed the same, the co-ordinate bench was pleased to fix the

main matter for early hearing vide order dated 23.03.2022.

This incident is sufficient enough to indicate that if any fruther

liberty is continued to respondent No.2 despite such

supervening circumstance, the case of the prosecution will be

substantially damaged. Hence, Mr. Kodekar, learned advocate

has vehemently submitted to set aside the impugned order.

[4.6] Additionally, Mr. Kodekar, learned advocate has drawn the

attention of this Court towards the reasons which are assigned

by the learned Special Judge while passing the order. In

addition thereto, the final report which has been submitted and

the role which has been ascribed to respondent No.2 is also

pointed out to the Court from paragraph 77 on-wards wherein

the clear nexus between original accused and respondent No.2

is established prima facie and since respondent No.2 has acted

as chief conduit of Mr. J.P.Singh, this material is sufficient to

connect him and as such the systematic organized activity which

has been undertaken, deserves to be seriously taken note of and

thereby the order of grant of bail deserves to be quashed.

R/CR.MA/15116/2017 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2022

[4.7] In any case, Mr. Kodekar, learned advocate has submitted

that proper vigilance is made by applicant in prosecuting the

matter, not only at the initial stage itself but also at a

subsequent stage as well. When further material is available, it

was immediately brought to the notice of the Court and it was

requested that the matter to be taken up promptly. As such the

over all circumstances prevailing on record are sufficient

enough to indicate that the respondent No.2 does not deserve to

be continued on bail.

[4.8] Mr. Kodekar, learned advocate has further submitted that

this is a systematic organized activity which is unearthed during

the course of investigation and when sufficient material is prima

facie available, the conduct of respondent No.2 is enough to

indicate that he does not deserve to be continued on bail.

Hence, the case will be seriously prejudiced.

[5] As against this, Mr. Hardik A. Dave, learned advocate

appearing on behalf of opponent No.2 has vehemently tried to

oppose the present application by contending that application is

not entertainable in view of the fact that there is no supervening

R/CR.MA/15116/2017 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2022

circumstance by virtue of which the bail once granted deserves

to be canceled. By referring to an order impugned, a contention

is raised that discretion has been exercised with proper

application of mind and while exercising such discretion the

relevant circumstance related to grant of bail have been taken

note of and as such the order does not call for any interference.

It has been contended by Mr. Dave, learned advocate that there

is no prima facie case made out by the applicant against

opponent No.2 in any form and as such application may not be

entertained. Apart from that, it has been contended that an

amount of Rs.4.92 crores cash was in usual course of business

transaction and no amount illegally demanded from Mr. Manoj

Jain. Whatever amount received was as a part of business and

not in any form an illegal gratification. It has been contended

that WhatsApp conversation which has tried to be relied upon

are not the full record and as such a serious attempt is made to

rope the opponent No.2. On the contrary, even no demand was

made from Mr. Ashish Grover by present applicants which is

tried to be projected. In fact, an information was provided to

CBI about one Mr. Anil Thakur and in turn he is projecting a

R/CR.MA/15116/2017 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2022

story of illegal demand and as such there is a systematic

designed against opponent No.2 to somehow to rope him in

serious criminal prosecution. It has been contended that

throughout opponent No.2 has fully cooperated the

investigating office during the course of investigation and by

relying upon the case of Sanjay Chandra versus Central

Bureau Investigation, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 Mr.

Dave, learned advocate has raised a contention that bail once

granted may not be canceled.

[5.1] Mr. Dave, learned advocate has further contended that on

the contrary, during the interregnum, by moving an application,

a permission was sought to allow opponent No.2 to travel

abroad but then upon such circumstance though the order was

passed on 12.07.2017 in Criminal Misc. Application No.266 of

2017 the opponent No.2 at immigration counter was intercepted

and prevented and taken into custody by the officers of

immigration center by indicating that there was a lookout notice

issued by CBI, Delhi and on account of such, opponent No.2 had

to miss the flight and cancel the travel and was taken to illegal

R/CR.MA/15116/2017 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2022

custody. This is the manner in which opponent No.2's liberty

was curtailed in an autocratic manner. Mr. Dave, learned

advocate has further by way of affidavit contended that by

virtue of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court it has been

stated that even when bail order is suffering from any infirmity

but once granted cannot be canceled as can be seen from the

proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Ashok Kumar versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another

reported in (2009) 11 SCC 329. By referring to certain other

decisions delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, Mr. Dave,

learned advocate has vehemently opposed the grant of any relief

in the present application. According to Mr. Dave, learned

advocate by presenting an affidavit an additional facts are

sought to be relied upon and this tantamounts to not only

pressurizing opponent No.2 but an incident of misleading the

Hon'ble Court. It has been submitted that conversation which is

canvassed by the applicant as an attempt to influence the

witness is on the contrary recorded by respondent when he

along with other witness were summoned and present at the

Enforcement Directorate Office, Delhi the conversation was

R/CR.MA/15116/2017 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2022

recorded as collection of evidence to unearth the true facts but

then the authority has misconstrued the same and tried to made

out a case that it is an attempt to sabotage the investigation in

the present case.

[5.2] Mr. Dave, learned advocate has further submitted that in

fact on 31.10.2018, 22.11.2018 and 06.12.2018 complaints were

made by Mr. J.P.Singh co-accused to the Central Vigilance

Commission against Mr. Karnal Singh, IPS (Retd.), Ex Director,

ED and Mr. M.C.R. Mukund, Dy.S.P., CBI for sabotage of

investigation of Cricket Betting Syndicate. The video and the

conversions are nothing but an evidence which were provided

on the contrary by opponent No.2 to Mr. J.P.Singh to file the

complaint and it is thereafter said Mr. J.P.Singh was summoned

by CVC under Section 11 of the CVC Act who appeared before

commission on 20.03.2019 and 27.03.2019 and provided all

records and one pen drive having conversation which was

recorded by opponent No.2 himself. On the contrary, according

to Mr. Dave, learned advocate it is after that on 11.04.2019 CVC

in exercise of power conferred under Section 8 of the CVC Act,

R/CR.MA/15116/2017 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2022

2003 had directed that investigation to be conducted by CBI and

the report may be submitted to CVC within 12 weeks but even

after such directions of CVC, CBI remain silent and had not

initiated any action against Mr.Karnal Singh, IPS (Retd.), Ex

Director, ED and Mr. M.C.R. Mukund, Dy. S.P., CBI and even

the reports were also not filed in view of such direction.

[5.3] According to Mr. Hardik A. Dave, learned advocate on the

contrary pursuant to this Mr. J.P.Singh approached Delhi High

Court for seeking issuance of appropriate direction to CBI as

directed by CVC by preferring Writ Petition (CRL) No.2440 of

2021 and while admitting the said petition, by way of order

dated 08.12.2021, the Delhi High Court had directed the CBI to

file status report within three weeks and the matter was

adjourned to 10.01.2022 and later on the matter was disposed

of upon due inquiry by CVC.

[5.4] Mr. Dave, learned advocate on the contrary has

vehemently submitted that alleged recordings wherein

possession since 11.04.2019, in fact such recordings was in the

R/CR.MA/15116/2017 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2022

year 2017 and wherein possession from past more than 3 years

but the applicant remained silent and did not consider the

alleged recordings as an attempt to influence the witness until

the Delhi High Court had directed CBI to file status report by

way of order dated 08.12.2021. It is very surprising to note that

after the said direction to submit the status report in present

proceeding on 05.01.2022 applicant had moved an application

for fixing date of hearing of present proceedings which was

granted by virtue of order dated 23.03.2022 and it is thereafter

these additional facts were placed on record by way of

additional affidavit. On the contrary, to save skin of its own

officers, the present applicant had used the confidential

evidence provided by CVC to CBI just to investigate against Mr.

Karnal Singh, IPS (Retd.), Ex Director, ED and Mr. M.C.R.

Mukund, Dy. S.P. CBI, as mentioned above, to sabotage of

investigation of Cricket Betting Syndicate. All these sequence of

events would clearly indicate that opponent No.2 has nothing to

do with such strategic mode and therefore on such attempt of

targeting some officers, opponent No.2 is tried to made a

scapegoat and this is nothing but tantamount to be curtailing

R/CR.MA/15116/2017 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2022

liberty which has already been granted before quite some time

and as such by relying upon the decision delivered by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar(supra) and in

the case of Hazarilal Das versus State of West Bengal

reported in (2009) 10 SCC 652 a request is made not to grant

any relief as prayed for in the application. At last, Mr. Dave,

learned advocate has submitted that these subsequent events

would go to show that opponent No.2 is on the contrary an

innocent person. Hence, Mr. Dave, learned advocate has

requested not to grant any relief.

[6] As against this, as a part of rejoinder, Mr. R.C.Kodekar,

learned advocate appearing for the applicant has vehemently

opposed the stand of Mr. Hardik Dave, learned advocate on the

ground that this is not an application for solely considering the

subsequent event and then to cancel and on the contrary the

very grant of bail is questioned before the Court that in such a

systematic designed in which opponent No.2 is a central person of

such conspiracy, his role is eloquent which has been not properly

considered by the Court below as such the application is pressed.

R/CR.MA/15116/2017 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2022

[6.1] With a view to emphasized the stand, Mr. Kodekar,

learned advocate has submitted a chart to indicate the

mathadoloty and the role played by each of the persons who are

central of controversy in the present proceeding and by

referring to such particulars and evidence Mr. Kodekar, learned

advocate has submitted that all the sequence of events would

clearly indicate that the learned judge has committed a serious

error in passing the impugned order. It is submitted that this

subsequent event which has taken place is also since

interconnected to the main issue to assist the Court such

material in the form of chart has been presented and as such

when this be the serious conspiracy in which opponent No.2 is a

central person to a substantial extent the bail order which has

been passed requires to be quashed. No doubt as a normal rule

once the bail has been granted, the same may not be challenged

in a routine manner but here is a case in which the learned

Court below has not assigned any proper reasons, the order is

suffering from the vice of perversity and apparently the

opponent No.2 has misused the liberty since Condition No.A has

been oughtrightly violated. It has been submitted that case is at

R/CR.MA/15116/2017 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2022

the stage of framing of charge and therefore at this stage itself

if the conduct of opponent No.2 is ignored, the witnesses will be

definitely influenced. There is sufficient material on record that

opponent No.2 is trying to exert a pressure upon witness Mr.

Manoj Jain which would frustrate the very case of prosecution.

On the contrary, an amount of Rs.2.75 crores was also taken out

from Mr. Manoj Jain by opponent No.2 allegedly for Mr.

J.P.Singh and as such this Mr. Manoj Jain is a prime witness and

if he will not support the case on account of pressure exerted by

opponent No.2, the entire case would fall down to ground and

as such in no case opponent No.2 deserves to be continued to

remain on bail. On the contrary, there is enough material

available with the applicant that opponent No.2 is trying to

influence the witness and as such in such a serious case if

opponent No.2 is allowed to smoothly operate like this it would

definitely has an adverse impact on prosecution case.

[6.2] Mr. Kodekar, learned advocate has submitted that it is not

a routine law that once bail is granted the same may not be

canceled in any circumstance on the contrary if the order is

R/CR.MA/15116/2017 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2022

granted itself is perverse suffering from lack of reasons and

based on no discussion about prima facie material then the said

order itself deserves to be quashed and therefore said

proposition about consideration of cancellation of bail may not

be applied which would ultimately prevent the applicant from

challenging the order of grant of bail itself. Hence, learned

advocate has requested that in view of conduct of opponent

No.2 the Hon'ble Court may kindly set aside the order and

curtail the liberty of opponent No.2 in the best interest of case

of prosecution.

[7] Having heard learned advocates appearing for the parties

and having gone through the material on record before dealing

with the same, the Court would like to state that while

exercising the discretion it is incumbent upon the Court to see

that the grant of bail order is an exercise of cautious and

judicious discretion and also within the basic principles

governing the grant or refusal of bail. The Hon'ble Apex Court

in a decision last in line in the case of Majoj Kumar Khokhar

versus State of Rajasthan and another reported in (2022) 3

R/CR.MA/15116/2017 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2022

SCC 501 has categorically stated that the nature of charge is

also a vital factor and the nature of evidence is also material so

the criminal antecedents are also to be looked into and if the

crime is serious in nature such crime by no stretch of

imagination can be regarded as jejune. Such cases do create a

thunder and lighting having the effect potentiality of torrential

rain in an analytical mind. The law expects that the judiciary to

be alert while admitting these kind of accused persons to be at

large and, therefore, the emphasis is on exercise of discretion

judiciously and not in a whimsical manner. By referring to

series of decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court has submitted that

there cannot be an elaborate details recorded to give an

impression that the case is one that would result in a conviction

or, by contrast, in an acquittal while passing an order on an

application for grant of bail. However, the Court deciding a bail

application cannot completely divorce its decision from material

aspects of the case such as the allegations made against the

accused; severity of the punishment if the allegations are

proved beyond reasonable doubt would result in a conviction;

reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced by

R/CR.MA/15116/2017 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2022

the accused; tampering of the evidence; the frivolity in the case

of the prosecution; criminal antecedents of the accused; and a

prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge

against the accused and therefore has propounded that while

elaborate reasons may not be assigned for grant of bail nor

extensive discussion on merit but an order de hors reasoning or

bereft of relevant reasons cannot be simply result in grant of

bail and in that case the prosecution or informant has a right to

assail the order before higher forum. The relevant observations

contained in the said recent decision, the Court would like to

reproduce the same hereunder:-

"24. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs. Ashis Chaterjee- (2010) 14 SCC 496 this Court observed that where a High Court has granted bail mechanically, the said order would suffer from the vice of non-application of mind, rendering it illegal. This Court held as under with regard to the circumstances under which an order granting bail may be set aside. In doing so, the factors which ought to have guided the Court's decision to grant bail have also been detailed as under:

"9...It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally

R/CR.MA/15116/2017 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2022

incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are:

(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence;

(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;

(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;

(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;

(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;

(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;

(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and

(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail."

33. The most recent judgment of this Court on the aspect of application of mind and requirement of judicious exercise of discretion in arriving at an order granting bail to the accused is in the case of Brijmani Devi vs. Pappu Kumar and Anr. - Criminal Appeal No. 1663/2021 disposed of on 17th December, 2021, wherein a three Judge Bench of this Court, while setting aside an unreasoned and casual order of the High Court granting bail to the accused, observed as follows:

"35. While we are conscious of the fact that liberty of an individual is an invaluable right, at the same time while

R/CR.MA/15116/2017 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2022

considering an application for bail Courts cannot lose sight of the serious nature of the accusations against an accused and the facts that have a bearing in the case, particularly, when the accusations may not be false, frivolous or vexatious in nature but are supported by adequate material brought on record so as to enable a Court to arrive at a prima facie conclusion. While considering an application for grant of bail a prima facie conclusion must be supported by reasons and must be arrived at after having regard to the vital facts of the case brought on record. Due consideration must be given to facts suggestive of the nature of crime, the criminal antecedents of the accused, if any, and the nature of punishment that would follow a conviction vis àvis the offence/s alleged against an accused."

35. The Latin maxim "cessante ratione legis cessat ipsa lex" meaning "reason is the soul of the law, and when the reason of any particular law ceases, so does the law itself", is also apposite.

36. We have extracted the relevant portions of the impugned order above. At the outset, we observe that the extracted portions are the only portions forming part of the "reasoning" of the High court while granting bail. As noted from the aforecited judgments, it is not necessary for a Court to give elaborate reasons while granting bail particularly when the case is at the initial stage and the allegations of the offences by the accused would not have been crystalised as such. There cannot be elaborate details recorded to give an impression that the case is one that would result in a conviction or, by contrast, in an acquittal while passing an order on an application for grant of bail.

R/CR.MA/15116/2017 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2022

However, the Court deciding a bail application cannot completely divorce its decision from material aspects of the case such as the allegations made against the accused; severity of the punishment if the allegations are proved beyond reasonable doubt and would result in a conviction; reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced by the accused; tampering of the evidence; the frivolity in the case of the prosecution; criminal antecedents of the accused; and a prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge against the accused.

37. Ultimately, the Court considering an application for bail has to exercise discretion in a judicious manner and in accordance with the settled principles of law having regard to the crime alleged to be committed by the accused on the one hand and ensuring purity of the trial of the case on the other.

38. Thus, while elaborate reasons may not be assigned for grant of bail or an extensive discussion of the merits of the case may not be undertaken by the court considering a bail application, an order de hors reasoning or bereft of the relevant reasons cannot result in grant of bail. In such a case the prosecution or the informant has a right to assail the order before a higher forum. As noted in Gurcharan Singh vs. State (Delhi Admn.) 1978 CriLJ 129, when bail has been granted to an accused, the State may, if new circumstances have arisen following the grant of such bail, approach the High Court seeking cancellation of bail under section 439 (2) of the CrPC. However, if no new circumstances have cropped up since the grant of bail, the

R/CR.MA/15116/2017 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2022

State may prefer an appeal against the order granting bail, on the ground that the same is perverse or illegal or has been arrived at by ignoring material aspects which establish a primafacie case against the accused."

[8] In the light of aforesaid proposition, a perusal of the

impugned order itself suggest that except a reason that whether

money transactions are legal or not is a matter of evidence and

then by referring to a decision in the case of Sanjay Chandra

(Supra) by a brief order, the opponent No.2 was enlarged on

regular bail. Such exercise of jurisdiction would indicate that

order is laconic in nature. Simply by narrating that some of the

accused chargesheeted as indicated in paragraph 13 two

accused are not arrested and accused Nos. 1 to 8 are arrested

by Investigating Officer and the detail narration of material

projected before the Court has not been examined at all and by

a brief order in such a serious offence, the impugned order is

passed and as such in considered opinion of this Court, the

order is bereft of minimum discussion about material against

opponent No.2 and appears to be perverse and as such in

considered opinion of this court, the order is not sustainable in

the eye of law.

R/CR.MA/15116/2017 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2022

[9] Apart from that when the role attributed against opponent

No.2 if to be examined in the light of material projected before

the Court by applicant investigation agency, opponent No.2

obtained an amount of Rs.2.75 crores from one Mr. Manoj Jain

and Rs.50 lakhs from accused Mr. Surinder Kalra @ Surinder

Mandi in the name of Mr. J.P.Singh. The narration of material

which is pointed out is clearly attributing prima facie that

opponent No.2 is having a substantial role in the alleged

conspiracy hatched and how and in what manner each

prosecution witnesses have been in contact with opponent No.2

is described in a tabular chart. The said chart not being

countered except by a lame excuse it indicates that opponent

No.2 is a prime connecting link in the entire commission of

alleged crime and as such by giving lame reasons the learned

Court below ought not to have granted bail in mechanical

exercise of discretion. There is enough and ample material

available with applicant to indicate that opponent No.2 is not so

simply connected as tried to be projected by the learned

advocate presenting him. On the contrary, before charge-sheet

R/CR.MA/15116/2017 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2022

opponent No.2 was not enlarged but then after submission of

charge-sheet opponent No.2 was shown as one of the accused

along with other 9 accused persons. So much so that even

supplementary charge-sheet has also been filed against

opponent No.2 on 28.10.2020 in which there is ample material

as projected by applicant against opponent No.2 and, therefore,

this Court is of the opinion that apparent look at the order

impugned in the application is not possible to be sustained in

the eye of law.

[10] Further, presently the case is at the stage of framing of

charge wherein one co-accused persons Mr. Chandresh Patel

had been discharged by the trial court and the subsequent

circumstance even if not to be looked into then also the role

attributed against opponent No.2 and the material connected

with it would clearly indicate that the exercise of discretion

undertaken by the Court below is not on the touch stone of

settled principle of law on exercise of such discretion. On the

contrary, there is more than enough circumstance available

against opponent No.2 about justification of apprehension of

R/CR.MA/15116/2017 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2022

applicant to believe that if opponent No.2 is allowed to continue

to remain in liberty a definite stand deserves to be accepted

about apprehension by him to influence the material witness of

the case and as such the Court is of the opinion that a case is

made out by applicant to grant relief as prayed for in the

application. Since the chart indicating material is placed on

record, the Court deems it proper to reproduce the same

hereunder:-

"Role of accused Bimal Agarwal with evidence in support Sh. Bimal Agarwal was claiming to be an informer of Sh. J.P. Singh during the relevant period. He was in constant touch with Sh. J.P. Singh through whatsapp and provided information about various bookies/punters to him. He also contacted the persons involved in the ED case and collected illegal gratification for Sh. J.P. Singh. Sh. J.P. Singh also shared official information like arrest/search being done by ED with Sh. Bimal Agarwal and he utilised the said information in extracting money from different bookies/punters. Sh. Bimal Agarwal was also instrumental in channelizing the illegal gratification received on behalf of Sh. J.P. Singh, through deposits in his companies and other concerns. There is evidence in shape of testimonies of the bookies/punters that Sh. Bimal Agarwal approached them on behalf of Sh. J.P. Singh to settle the matter with ED in lieu of illegal gratification. It is also in evidence that the bookies/punters who paid illegal gratification through

R/CR.MA/15116/2017 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2022

Bimal Agarwal were favoured by ED and those who did not pay, had to face coercive steps by ED. He also obtained Rs. 2.75 crores from one Manoj Jain and Rs.50 lacs from accused Surinder Kalra @ Surinder Mandi in the name of Sh. J.P. Singh.

The evidence against accused Bimal Agarwal are as under:

Sl.          Name of PW                                 Evidence
No.
1.       PW-5 Sh. Manoj Jain       He was a punter. In his statement u/s 164 Cr.PC, he

has stated that he on 25.07.2015, he was called to the house of accused J. K. Arora in Delhi, where Bimal Agarwal and Sonu Jalan were also present. They threatened PW-5 of ED action and arrest. They demanded Rs.3 crores from him to save him from ED action. After negotiations they reduced their demand to Rs.2.75 crores. PW-5 further stated that after a month or so, he made a payment of Rs.1.25 crores to Sonu Jalan and Rs.1.50 crores to accused J. K. Arora.

2. PW-17 Sh. Mahender He was a punter. In his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC, he Mittal has stated that accused Sonu Jalan contacted his several times and informed that ED might take action against him and asked him to meet accused Bimal Agarwal, who could save him from ED action. He further stated that on 19.08.2015, he was called to hotel Sarovar, Goregaon, Mumbai by accused Surinder Kalra @ Surinder Mandi, where accused Sonu Jalan and Bimal Agarwal were also present. Accused Bimal Agarwal told him that he did not take the warnings of Sonu Jalan seriously and will have to face the consequences. PW-17 requested Bimal Agarwal to help him in the matter. Sh. Bimal Agarwal assured him that he will do it after some time. Thereafter, CBI register a case against ED officers and PW-17 did not pursue the matter further with accused Bimal Agarwal and others.

3. PW-22 Sh. Alpesh He works as 'Angadia'. In his statement u/s 161 Patel Cr.PC, he has stated that sometime in June-August, 2015, accused Surinder Mandi had given Rs.50 lacs in cash to his Delhi Office, which was got delivered by PW-22 to Bimal Agarwal in Mumbai. He has further stated that accused J. K. Arora gave Rs.1.5 crores at his Delhi Office, which was got delivered by PW-22 to Bimal Agarwal in Mumbai. PW-22 has

R/CR.MA/15116/2017 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2022

further stated that on the instructions of accused Sonu Jalan, he got delivered Rs.50 lacs to some person (Dhruv Kumar Singh, uncle of accused J. P. Singh) in Lucknow.

4. PW-32 Sh. Anil He is working as Sub Inspector in Delhi Police and Thakur an acquaintance of accused Bimal Agarwal. In his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC he has stated that in April- May, 2015, he got a call from Bimal Agarwal that ED might initiate action against Mukesh Sharma, a bookie based at Delhi and asked him to contact Mukesh Sharma and tell him to meet Bimal Agarwal for amicable settlement. He further stated that Sh. Mukesh Sharma did not pay heed to his advice and the same was communicated by PW-32 to Bimal Agarwal. Thereafter, ED conducted raids at the residence of Mukesh Sharma and he was arrested.

5. PW-36 Sh. K.P. He used to work as 'Angadia' with M/s S. Babulal & Thakore Co. in Delhi. In his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC, he has stated that during May-August, 2015, he had collected Rs.50 lacs from accused Surinder Mandi for transferring the same to Mumbai. He further stated that during June-August, 2015, he had also collected Rs.2.5 to 3 crores from accused J. K. Arora for payment to accused Sonu Jalan and Bimal Agarwal in Mumbai.

6. PW-37 Sh. Ashish He was a punter. In his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC, he Grover has stated that on 25/26.05.2015 he was called to hotel Le Meridian, New Delhi where Bimal Agarwal, Sonu Jalan, J. K. Arora etc. were present. Bimal Agarwal and J. K. Arora demanded Rs.10 crores from PW-37 as protection money to save him from ED action. Since PW-37 could not arrange the amount, ED conducted raid at his residence on 14.07.2015 and was arrested on 15.07.2015. He further stated that no search/raid was conducted at the residence of bookies who paid the bribe amount such as Surinder Mandi, Manoj Jain, Chander, Jalandhar etc.

7. PW-39 Sh. Mohan He was a punter. In his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC, he Madan has stated that in August, 2015, he was called to Hotel Oakwood, Juhu, Mumbai were accused Bimal Agarwal, Sonu Jalan and Surinder Mandi were present. Accused Bimal Agarwal told him that his matter with ED could be be resolved and in lieu of the same he demanded money from PW-39.

However, soon thereafter, CBI case was registered

R/CR.MA/15116/2017 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2022

against ED officers in the matter and hence, he did not make any payment to Bimal Agarwal.

8. PW-56 Sh. Ashwani He was a bookie. In his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC, Agarwal he has stated that everyone in the bookie fraternity was aware of the proximity between accused Bimal Agarwal and J. P. Singh, ED Officer posted at Ahmedabad. Bimal Agarwal used Sonu Jalan and Surinder Mandi for getting information about various bookies as they were from the same field. He further stated that Bimal Agarwal extorted huge amount from different bookies in the name of protection from ED Action.

9. PW-12 Sh. Sanjay He was punter. In his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC, he Agarwal @ Chotu has stated that he was called to hotel Oakwood, Nagpur (in the Juhu, Mumbai where accused Bimal Agarwal supplementary demanded Rs.10 to 15 crores so that the properties charge sheet) of PW-12 are not attached by the ED. Since the worth of properties of PW-12 were between Rs.4 to 5 crores, he refused to pay any bribe.

D-66 (CDR and CAF of mobile used by Bimal Agrawal) - It shows that accused Bimal Agarwal was in constant touch with accused J. P. Singh as well as various Bookies and punters.

D-67(Extract of whatsapp messages exchanged with J.P. Singh) - It shows that accused Bimal Agarwal was giving information about various bookies and punters to accused J. P. Singh. Accused J. P. Singh was also sharing confidential information regarding searches and arrests with accused Bimal Agarwal.

D-104 to 132 (Statement of the bank accounts maintained in the name of the companies run by Sh. Bimal Agrawal, himself and his family members): Statements of account show that huge amounts in cash were deposited in the bank accounts of accused Bimal Agarwal, his family members and companies belonging to him.

 During investigation, accused Bimal Agarwal was arrested on 20.02.2017. He was granted bail of the Ld. Trial Court vide order dt. 12.05.2017  After investigation, a charge sheet under Section 120-B IPC and section 7, 8, 9, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was filed against accused Bimal Agarwal and 09 others.

 After further investigation, a supplementary charge

R/CR.MA/15116/2017 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2022

sheet u/s 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was filed against Bimal Agarwal on 28.10.2020.  Presently the case is at the stage of 'arguments on charge'. One accused persons i.e. Chandresh Patel (A-

8), has been discharged by the Ld. Trial Court vide order dt. 22.09.2021, against which Crl. Revision Application No. 875/2021 has been filed, which is pending before the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court.  Accused J. P. Singh had filed a complaint dt. 27.03.2019 with the CVC against the complainant Sh. Karnal Singh, the then Director, Enforcement Directorate and Sh. M. C. R. Mukund, Dy.SP/IO of the case. Along with this complaint he had enclosed a pen drive containing audio/video conversations recorded by accused Bimal Agarwal.

 The complaint dt. 27.03.2019 was forwarded by the CVC to CBI for taking necessary action and the same was received in CBI on 22.04.2019. The CBI authorities marked the same to CBI, ACB, New Delhi, where a complaint has been registered and the same is being verified.

 CBI, ACB, Delhi marked the complaint to CBI, AC-VI, New Delhi for comments with regard to the allegations made by accused J. P. Singh related to omissions and commissions on the part of the IO of the case. The said complaint was received in CBI, AC-VI branch on 16.07.2019. The comments were offered by CBI, AC-VI, New Delhi on 15.01.2020.

 In December, 2021, while preparing the arguments against the discharge applications filed by accused persons, the present deponent / pairvi officer of the case, stumbled upon the file containing the complaint of accused J. P. Singh. After scrutiny of the pendrive it was revealed that accused Bimal Agarwal had recorded his conversations with PW-5 Sh. Manoj Jain and PW-7 Sh. Chirag Parekh in which clearly seen to influencing the witnesses. Immediately, thereafter an application for early hearing along with the transcripts of recorded conversations, was filed before this Hon'ble Court."

[11] Form the aforesaid material projected before the Court, it

clearly transpires that apprehension voiced out by the applicant

R/CR.MA/15116/2017 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2022

against opponent No.2 about his likelihood of tampering or

misusing liberty in any form appears to be justified and

therefore when the order itself is perverse suffers from lack of

cogent reasons and bereft of material dealt with, Court see no

reason to allow such order to stand in the eye of law.

[12] Additionally, it has been found from the assertion of the

memo itself which is not controverted by opponent No.2 that

though it was pointed out before the learned Special CBI Judge

that respondent is also being investigated by Mumbai Police in

two other cases namely EOW CR No.29/2012 and EOW CR

No.23/2016 in which also the opponent No.2 is having a specific

role as mentioned and as such it is not a simple case that in

solitary instance opponent No.2 is tried to be arraigned. On the

contrary, opponent No.2 appears to have specific criminal

antecedent and therefore that having not considered in its

proper prospective though pointed out that there is hardly any

reason to allow such impugned order to sustain as apparently

reflects a clear non-application of mind. With aforesaid

background of criminal history if opponent No.2 is allowed to

R/CR.MA/15116/2017 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2022

have an opportunity of influencing alerting or warning potential

witnesses at a crucial stage as indicated above, Court see no

reason to allow such laconic impugned order to sustain in the

eye of law. The entire order if to be looked into prima facie

suggest that when the accused person is arraigned and having a

specific role in larger conspiracy of such a significant level the

routine exercise of discretion to enlarge the accused on bail is

thoroughly uncalled for. On the contrary, it had also been

noticed as specifically asserted that learned Special Judge has

failed to even consider that opponent did not join the

investigation and rather evading under one pretext or the other

right from August, 2016 which has perforced the issuance of

look out notice. If this be the situation, the offence in which

opponent No.2 is involved of such a magnitude the Special

Judge ought to have taken cautious approach while exercising

discretion. Even the digital evidence against opponent is

available with the applicant by virtue of which it has revealed

that there was an acceptance of Rs.3.25 crores from various

bookies and punters as protection money and as such when

such a serious crime is tried to be investigated and proper

R/CR.MA/15116/2017 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2022

accused persons are in the process of bringing to the record

cautious, judicious approach ought to have been undertaken

having not done so it appears to this Court that a case is made

out by the applicant to set aside the impugned order.

[13] At this stage no doubt the question of liberty of an

individual is of prime consideration and the same Court cannot

ignore but at the same time accent on individual liberty cannot

be pyramided to the extent which would bring chaos and

anarchy to a society. A society expects responsibility and

accountability from the member, and it desires that the citizens

should obey the rule of law and respecting it as a cherished

social norm. No individual can make an attempt to create a

concavity in the steam of social stream and therefore, when an

individual behaves in a disharmonious manner ushering in

disordely things which the society disapproves, the legal

consequences are bound to follow and at that stage, the Court

has a duty. It cannot abandon its sacrosanct obligation and pass

an order at its own whim or caprice. It has to be guided by the

established parameters of law. Therefore, no doubt opponent

R/CR.MA/15116/2017 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2022

No.2 can claim a liberty as a part of Article 21 of the

Constitution of India but when the role attributed to him is

clearly indicating that he has scant regard to the law, his

criminal antecedent and the role played as alleged in the

complaint together with material produced, it appears to this

Court that the impugned order has been passed not on the

touch stone of strict parameters prescribed to be considered

while dealing with exercise to deal with request for bail. In this

regard the observations contained in paragraph 16 from the

decision delivered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Neeru

Yadav versus State of U.P. decided on 16.12.2014 is

reproduced hereunder:-

"16. The issue that is presented before us is whether this Court can annul the order passed by the High Court and curtail the liberty of the 2nd respondent. We are not oblivious of the fact that the liberty is a priceless treasure for a human being. It is founded on the bed rock of constitutional right and accentuated further on human rights principle. It is basically a natural right. In fact, some regard it as the grammar of life. No one would like to lose his liberty or barter it for all the wealth of the world. People from centuries have fought for liberty, for absence of liberty causes sense of emptiness. The sanctity of liberty

R/CR.MA/15116/2017 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2022

is the fulcrum of any civilized society. It is a cardinal value on which the civilisation rests. It cannot be allowed to be paralysed and immobilized. Deprivation of liberty of a person has enormous impact on his mind as well as body. A democratic body polity which is wedded to rule of law, anxiously guards liberty. But, a pregnant and significant one, the liberty of an individual is not absolute. The society by its collective wisdom through process of law can withdraw the liberty that it has sanctioned to an individual when an individual becomes a danger to the collective and to the societal order. Accent on individual liberty cannot be pyramided to that extent which would bring chaos and anarchy to a society. A society expects responsibility and accountability from the member, and it desires that the citizens should obey the law, respecting it as a cherished social norm. No individual can make an attempt to create a concavity in the stem of social stream. It is impermissible. Therefore, when an individual behaves in a disharmonious manner ushering in disorderly things which the society disapproves, the legal consequences are bound to follow. At that stage, the Court has a duty. It cannot abandon its sacrosanct obligation and pass an order at its own whim or caprice. It has to be guided by the established parameters of law."

[14] In addition to the connecting link of opponent No.2 in

alleged commission of crime which has been unearthed, this

Court is of the opinion that these are almost an economic

offences and it is trite law that economic offences are to be

R/CR.MA/15116/2017 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2022

viewed strictly as it constitute a class apart. The Hon'ble Apex

Court has propounded in catena of decision that economic

offences need to be visited with a different approach in the

matter of bail since these offences having deep-rooted

conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds and

touching to the economy. The nature of accusation and the

severity and character of the accused all factors must to be

observed minutely. The decision almost last in line is a decision

in the case of P. Chidambaram versus Directorate of

Enforcement reported in (2019) 9 SCC 24 which has also

propounded aforesaid proposition and since the Court has

considered, the said observation deserves to be reproduced

hereunder:-

"80. Observing that economic offence is committed with deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless to the consequence to the community, in State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal and others (1987) 2 SCC 364, it was held as under:-

"5. ....The entire community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to book. A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic

R/CR.MA/15116/2017 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2022

offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the community. A disregard for the interest of the community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the community in the system to administer justice in an even-handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the national economy and national interest....."

81. Observing that economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with different approach in the matter of bail, in Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI (2013) 7 SCC 439, the Supreme Court held as under:-

"34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country.

35. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered

R/CR.MA/15116/2017 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2022

with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations.

(emphasis supplied)"

[15] Yet another decision which is also almost on the same line

delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Y.S.Jagan

Mohan Reddy versus Central Bureau of Investigation

reported in (2013) 7 SCC 439 in which also the CBI was the

investigating machinery and had elaborated the circumstances

in its status report and in that context, the observations which

are made by Hon'ble Apex Court are also worth to be taken note

of and as such the said observations are reproduced hereunder:-

"28. The CBI has pointed out that the investigation is in progress in respect of the above said group of companies. In the Status Report, the CBI has highlighted a number of details about the nexus of the appellant along with those companies. Since the investigation is still under progress in respect of those companies, we are not highlighting all those details furnished by the CBI in the Status Report.

33. On going into all the details furnished by the CBI in the form of Status Report and the counter affidavit dated 06.05.2013 sworn by the Deputy Inspector General of Police and Chief Investigating Officer, Hyderabad,

R/CR.MA/15116/2017 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2022

without expressing any opinion on the merits, we feel that at this stage, the release of the appellant (A-1) would hamper the investigation as it may influence the witnesses and tamper with the material evidence. Though it is pointed out by learned senior counsel for the appellant that since the appellant is in no way connected with the persons in power, we are of the view that the apprehension raised by the CBI cannot be lightly ignored considering the claim that the appellant is the ultimate beneficiary and the prime conspirator in huge monetary transactions.

34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offence having deep rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds needs to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country.

35. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations."

R/CR.MA/15116/2017 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2022

[16] Even in respect of yet another decision delivered by the

High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in the case of Ashwini Kumar

Patra versus Republic of India reported in 2021 SCC

OnLine Ori 438 the few observations based upon the decision

delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court since relevant, the Court

deems it proper to reproduce hereunder:-

"9. xxx

35. While granting bail, the Court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of public/State and other similar considerations."

In case of Mohan Lal Jitamalji Porwal (supra), it is held as follows:-

"5.......The entire community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to book. A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the Community. A disregard for the interest of the community can be manifested only at the

R/CR.MA/15116/2017 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2022

cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the community in the system to administer justice in an even-handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white colour crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the National Economy and National Interest".

10. Law is well settled that detailed examination of evidence and elaborate discussion on merits of the case need not be undertaken for grant of bail. The Court has to indicate in the bail order, reasons for prima facie conclusion why bail was being granted, particularly, when the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence."

[17] From the aforesaid observations which are made here is

the case on hand in which the elaborate analysis of material

which has been projected before the Court, the Court deems it

proper not to allow opponent No.2 to seek liberty as of right

specially when the case is at a crucial stage and there is a

serious apprehension voiced out by the applicant about

influencing the witness of tampering. Under this set of

circumstance, since the order under challenged is quit cryptic

not in the manner in which it has to be passed by assigning

cogent reasons and the stand of applicant having not been

R/CR.MA/15116/2017 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2022

appreciated in true prospective, this Court is of the opinion that

case is made out by the applicant to challenge the impugned

order successfully.

[18] Granting of bail requires some proper application of mind

and the guiding principles have already been enunciated and

projected time and again long back. One of the relevant

observations contained in paragraph 24 from the decision of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nimmagadda Prasad

versus Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2013)

7 SCC 466, the Court is of the opinion that the same ought not

to have been unnoticed by the Court below. The said

observations reads as under:-

"24. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purpose of granting bail, the Legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for

R/CR.MA/15116/2017 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2022

believing" instead of "the evidence" which means the Court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt."

[19] Further, what has been alleged against opponent No.2 is

related to an organized economic offence and such economic

offences are on the contrary a premeditated and as a part

systematic designed and therefore, such organized activity

cannot be equated with the crime which are generally

spontaneously and abruptly occurring and therefore when the

case is relating to such kind of offence, the Court on the

contrary should be on vigil while exercising discretion. The

apparent look at the impugned order since not on the touch

stone of aforementioned observations and principles and the

decision recently delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court as stated

above, this Court is of the opinion that impugned order deserves