IMPORTANT POINTS
1. If irrelevant materials have been taken into account or relevant materials have been kept out of consideration, the order granting bail to the accused cannot be sustained.
2. If there is specific allegation by the prosecution that the accused in question was a party to the criminal conspiracy, neither the Special Court nor the High Court is justified in granting bail to the said person.

Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code,1973-Section 437- Registration of a case by CBI under Sections 120-B read with Sections 409, 420 and 477-A of ’IPC’ and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) and (d) of "the PC Act" against Y.S. Jaganmohan Reddy (A-1), Member of Parliament and 73 others- A2 respondent the founder Director of M/s Jagathi Publications and the Financial Advisor for the group of companies of Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy (A-1) while in custody applied for bail-Grant of Bail to A2 by Special Judge-Petition filed by CBI for cancellation of bail granted to A-2-Dismissed by High Court-Appeal- Held High Court had mistakenly taken into account irrelevant materials and kept out relevant materials, which had to be considered for the grant of bail-Special Judge committed an error in granting bail and the same was erroneously affirmed by High Court-Impugned orders of Special Judge and High Court granting bail to A-2 set aside-Appeal allowed (Paras 29 to 33)
        Criminal Procedure Code,1973-Section 437-Grant of Bail-Principles to be taken into consideration-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- For the purpose of granting bail, the Legislature has used words "reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence" - This implies that 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 (Para 28)
       Facts of the Case :
        Present appeal is directed against the final judgment and order passed by the High Court wherein it dismissed the petition filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)-the appellant herein seeking cancellation of bail granted to the respondent herein.
       Findings of the Court :
        The Supreme Court held that High Court had mistakenly taken into account irrelevant materials and kept out relevant materials, which had to be considered for the grant of bail. Special Judge committed an error in granting bail and the same was erroneously affirmed by High Court. Impugned orders of Special Judge and High Court granting bail to A-2 were set aside. Appeal was allowed.
       Result : Appeal allowed

JUDGMENT

P. Sathasivam, J.

1) Leave granted.

2) This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 13.06.2012 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Petition No. 4387 of 2012, whereby the High Court dismissed the petition filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)- the appellant herein seeking cancellation of bail granted to the respondent herein.

Brief facts:

3) On the orders of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Petition Nos. 794, 6604 and 6979 of 2011 dated 10.08.2011, the CBI, Hyderabad, on 17.08.2011, registered a case being R.C. No. 19(A)/2011-CBI-Hyderabad dated 17.05.2011 under Sections 120-B read with Sections 409, 420 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘IPC’) and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short “the PC Act”) against Y.S. Jaganmohan Reddy (A-1), Member of Parliament and 73 others.

(b) V. Vijay Sai Reddy-the respondent herein was named as an accused at Sl. No. 2 in the FIR dated 17.08.2011 (after the chargesheet was framed, he was arrayed as A-2 and hereinafter, he will be referred to as A-2). The respondent herein was the founder Director of M/s Jagathi Publications and was the Financial Advisor for the group of companies of Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy (A-1).

(c) He was arrested on 02.01.2012 and was in police custody from 04.01.2012 to 09.01.2012 and again from 11.01.2012 to 17.01.2012. On 27.01.2012, he filed an application for grant of regular bail under Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘the Code’) before the Court of the Special Judge for CBI Cases at Hyderabad. The Special Judge, by order dated 21.03.2012, dismissed his application for bail.

(d) During investigation, it was revealed that M/s Jagathi Publications Pvt. Ltd. was originally incorporated as a private limited company on 14.11.2006 and later converted into a public limited company on 12.01.2009. At the relevant time, the respondent herein was the founder Director of the Company and Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy (A-1) was designated as the Authorised Signatory to operate the Bank accounts of the Company. He was appointed as a Director and Chairman with effect from 21.06.2007. It is alleged that A-1 floated M/s Jagathi Publications Pvt. Ltd. with an objective of conducting media business with the ill-gotten wealth. Most of the shareholders were alleged to be the benamis of Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy (A-1). Further, as a quid pro quo to these investments, the benefits were received by various investors including the companies/individuals from the decisions of the State Government in allotment of lands for Special Economic Zones (SEZs), contracts for irrigation projects, special relaxations/permissions for real estate ventures, mines etc. It is further revealed that Y.S. Jaganmohan Reddy (A-1) laundered the bribe money by routing it through various individuals and companies and getting investments made by them in his companies at a high premium.

(e) After investigation, on 31.03.2012, the CBI filed first charge sheet against A-1 to A-13 including the respondent herein under Section 120-B read with Sections 409, 420 and 477-A of the IPC and Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) and (d) of the PC Act in the Court of Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad. On 02.04.2012, A-2 filed another application for grant of bail before the Special Judge. By order dated 13.04.2012, the Special Judge granted bail to A-2.

(f) Being aggrieved by the order dated 13.04.2012, the CBI filed Criminal Petition No. 3712 of 2012 before the High Court. The High Court, by order dated 20.04.2012, set aside the order dated 13.04.2012 and remanded the matter to the Court of Special Judge to consider the case of A-2 afresh. In the meantime, the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad took cognizance of the charge sheet dated 31.03.2012 against A-1 to A-13 which was numbered as CC No. 8 of 2012. On 30.04.2012, af

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2013 Supreme(SC) 471

SUPREME COURT OF INDIAP. SATHASIVAM & M. YUSUF EQBAL, JJ.Central Bureau of Investigation - Appellant(s)VersusV. Vijay Sai Reddy - Respondent(s)CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 729 OF 2013(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5946 of 2012Decided On : MAY 09, 2013.

Cases Referred (5)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. SATHASIVAM & M. YUSUF EQBAL, JJ.
Central Bureau of Investigation - Appellant(s)
Versus
V. Vijay Sai Reddy - Respondent(s)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 729 OF 2013
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5946 of 2012
Decided On : MAY 09, 2013.