IMPORTANT POINTS
1. 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.
2. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail.

Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code,1973-Section 437-Application for grant of bail-Rejection of by High Court-Appeal-Registration of case by CBI under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 409 and 477-A of ’IPC’ and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) and (d) of PC Act" against Y.S.Jagan Mohan Reddy (A-1), Member of Parliament and 73 others-Arrest of A3 appellant for his involvement and complicity in the case - After filing of the charge sheet , in view of further materials, CBI started investigation to look into the aspects of the involvement of the appellant in M/s Indus Projects Ltd. and its group companies -In view of the same, undoubtedly, the investigating agency may require further time to collect all the materials, particularly, the nexus of the appellant with those concerns and the appellant being the beneficiary of the quantum of the amount secured- Even though the appellant was in custody for nearly 11 months, at the same time, the claim of the premier investigating agency could not be underestimated- If ultimately it was established, it was a grave economic offence of alienating prime lands to selected private companies/individuals under the garb of development using deceptive means resulting in wrongful ownership and control of material resources detrimental to the common good-In view of facts and circumstances held that appellant could not be released at this stage-Appeal dismissed (Paras 25 to 30)
       Facts of the Case :
        Present appeal is filed against final judgment and order passed by the High Court whereby the High Court dismissed the petition filed by the appellant herein for grant of bail.
       Findings of the Court :
        The Supreme Court held that 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. If ultimately it was established, it was a grave economic offence of alienating prime lands to selected private companies/individuals under the garb of development using deceptive means resulting in wrongful ownership and control of material resources detrimental to the common good. In view of facts and circumstances held that appellant could not be released at this stage. Appeal was dismissed.
       Result : Appeal dismissed

Judgement Key Points

Understood. Please provide the legal document content (inside tags or similar) and your specific question or task (e.g., summarize key terms, identify parties, extract clauses), and I'll analyze it accordingly using the specified referencing format with square brackets for each reference (e.g., (!) (!) ).

JUDGMENT

P.Sathasivam, J.

1) Leave granted.

2) This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 08.10.2012 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Petition No. 6732 of 2012 in R.C. 19(A)/2011-CBI- Hyderabad, whereby the High Court dismissed the petition filed by the appellant herein for grant of bail.

3) The only question posed for consideration is whether the appellant-herein has made out a case for bail.

Brief facts:

4) 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 Central Bureau of Investigation (in short “the CBI”), Hyderabad, registered a case being R.C. No. 19(A)/2011-CBI-Hyderabad dated 17.08.2011 under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 409 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for 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. Jagan Mohan Reddy (A-1), Member of Parliament and 73 others.

5) The appellant-Nimmagadda Prasad was named as an accused at Sl. No. 12 in the FIR dated 17.08.2011 (after the chargesheet was framed, he was arrayed as A-3 and hereinafter, he will be referred to as A-3). It is further seen that during the course of investigation, the appellant was arrested on 15.05.2012 for his involvement and complicity in the case and presently, he is in judicial custody.

6) After filing two successive bail applications before the trial Court which ended in dismissal, the appellant moved the High Court for enlarging him on bail on 06.09.2012 by filing Criminal Petition No. 6732 of 2012. The High Court, taking note of serious nature of the offence and having regard to personal and financial clout of the appellant (A-3) and finding that it cannot be ruled out that witnesses cannot be influenced by A-3 in case he is released on bail at this stage and also taking note of the submission of the Special Public Prosecutor that the investigation of the case is still continuing even after filing of the charge sheet(s), by impugned order dated 08.10.2012, dismissed his bail application.

7) Heard Mr. Harish N. Salve, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. Ashok Bhan, learned senior counsel for the respondent-CBI.

Contentions:

8) After taking us through the entire materials commencing from the filing of FIR dated 17.08.2011, contents of charge sheet dated 13.08.2012, orders of the trial Court rejecting the bail applications twice, the stand taken by the CBI before the trial Court and the High Court, Mr. Salve, learned senior counsel, vehemently contended that the appellant is entitled to an order of bail from this Court. He also submitted that in view of the inconsistent stand taken by the CBI at every stage and taking note of the fact that the appellant is in jail since 15.05.2012, by imposing appropriate conditions, the appellant may be released on bail.

9) Mr. Ashok Bhan, learned senior counsel for the CBI, by placing reliance on all the materials filed by the prosecution pointed out that the appellant, along with others, is involved in a serious economic offence. He also submitted that the appellant (A-3) himself is a beneficiary of land worth several crores of rupees and properties in association with Jagan Mohan Reddy (A-1), who enriched himself for more than 40,000 crores by the influence of his father who was the then Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh. He also submitted that even after filing of the charge sheet on 13.08.2012, in view of further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short “the Code”), the CBI is looking into all the aspects of investment of the appellant in M/s Indus Projects and its group of companies, has collected a number of files from different departments of the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Banks/NBFCs and other private companies/individuals. He finally concluded that in view of the Status Report dated 30.04.2013 filed

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2013 Supreme(SC) 477

SUPREME COURT OF INDIAP. SATHASIVAM & M.Y. EQBAL, JJ.Nimmagadda Prasad - Appellant(s)VersusCentral Bureau of Investigation - Respondent(s)CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 728 OF 2013(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 9706 of 2012)Decided On : MAY 9, 2013.

Cases Referred (1)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. SATHASIVAM & M.Y. EQBAL, JJ.
Nimmagadda Prasad - Appellant(s)
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation - Respondent(s)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 728 OF 2013
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 9706 of 2012)
Decided On : MAY 9, 2013.