IMPORTANT POINT
Ordinarily, a person who is suspected of having committed an offence u/s 120B r/ws 420 Indian Penal Code, would be entitled to bail, the paramount consideration would always be to ensure that the enlargement of such persons on bail will not jeopardise the prosecution case.

ORDER

Leave granted.

2. A complaint dated 25.8.1987 was received from one Shri Lakhu Bhai Pathak of U.K. whereupon a case under Section 120B read with Section 420 I.P.C. was registered against the appellants.

3. In brief, the allegations of the aforesaid complainant were that during the year 1983, the appellants came in contact with the complainant Lakhu Bhai Pathak and led him to believe that they wielded sufficient influence in India to secure for him lucrative contracts in India. It was further alleged that in the month of December, 1983, the appellants induced him to pay an amount of USS one lakh for procuring a contract for him. This amount was alleged to have been paid to appellant No. 1, Chandraswami, by two cheques, one for USS 27,000, dated 29.12.1983 and another for USS 73,000, dated 30.12.1983. Both the cheques were stated to have been handed over to appellant No. 1 on January 4, 1984 in New York.

4. Both the appellants denied the aforesaid allegations as being false and baseless. However, on the aforesaid complaint having been lodged, the appellants were arrested on 13.2.1988 but were ordered to be released on bail, vide order dated 17.2.1988 of the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi. While passing the order, some conditions were imposed including one that the appellants would not leave the country without prior permission of the Court and they would join the investigation as and when required.

5. On an application being filed, the High Court of Delhi, vide order dated 4.8.1988, allowed the appellants to go abroad on certain conditions. Thereafter, the appellants went abroad on a number of occasions after securing permission from the Delhi High Court. The last such permission was granted under order dated 4.9.1995.

6. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 28.11.1995 in a Public Interest Litigation, being Writ Petition No. 640 of 1995 (Anukul Chandra Pradhan v. U.O.I. & Anr.), which was confirmed by order dated 2.4.1996, the appellants have been restrained from going abroad. In reply to the aforesaid writ petition, the respondent stated that the investigation in the first information report lodged by Lakhu Bhai Pathak was still pending. Thereafter, on 12.4.1996, the respondent filed a charge-sheet in the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (C.M.M.), Delhi, against the two appellants. The C.M.M., Delhi, vide order dated 2.5.1996, took cognizance of the offence and issued non-bailable warrants against both the appellants. Consequent thereto, the appellants were arrested in Madras on 2.5.1996 and have been in custody since then. The appellants, on 3.5.1996, filed an application for cancellation of the non-bailable warrants and also moved another application for grant of bail. Both these applications were dismissed by the C.M.M. on 4.5.1996. He also passed an order cancelling the bail granted earlier to the appellants on 17.2.1988.

7. The orders dated 2.5.1996 and 4.5.1996 were challenged by appellant No. 1 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before the High Court, but without success. By order dated 8.5.1996, the prayer for bail was rejected by the High Court of Delhi. The three main grounds for rejected bail were; (i) new material had come to light; (ii) the C.B.I. apprehended that the appellants may tamper with the evidence; and (iii) the Supreme Court had restrained the appellants from going abroad in view of the apprehension expressed by the C.B.I.

8. Charges were then framed by the C.M.M., Delhi, against the appellants on 21.5.1996. Thereupon, another application for bail, being Criminal Misc. (main) No. 1267/1996, was filed in the High Court of Delhi but the same was dismissed on 24.5.1996. The trial of the appellants then commenced on 3.6.1996.

9. Applications for bail were again filed by appellant No. 1 before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and Special Judge, Delhi but were dismissed on 6.6.1996 and 7.6.1996 respecti