2019 Supreme(SC) 1179

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R. BANUMATHI, A.S. BOPANNA, HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.
SHRI P. CHIDAMBARAM – Appellant
VERSUS
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1603 2019 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.9269 of 2019) WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1605 2019 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.9445 of 2019) Decided On : 22-10-2019

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Grant of bail – Parameters – Expression of prima facie reasons for granting or refusing to grant bail is a requirement of law especially where such bail orders are appealable.
(2) At the stage of granting bail, an elaborate examination of evidence and detailed reasons touching upon merit of case which may prejudice accused, should be avoided.

Headnote:

(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439 – Grant of bail – Parameters – Expression of prima facie reasons for granting or refusing to grant bail is a requirement of law especially where such bail orders are appealable so as to indicate application of mind to the matter under consideration and reasons for conclusion – Recording of reasons is necessary since accused/prosecution/victim has every right to know the reasons for grant or refusal to grant bail – This will also help appellate court to appreciate and consider reasonings for grant or refusal to grant bail – But giving reasons for exercise of discretion in granting or refusing to grant bail is different from discussing merits or demerits of case – At the stage of granting bail, an elaborate examination of evidence and detailed reasons touching upon merit of case which may prejudice accused, should be avoided. (Paras 17 and 18)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439 – Grant of bail – Considerations – Jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of well-settled principles having regard to facts and circumstances of each case – Relevant factors are, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction and nature of materials relied upon by prosecution; (ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with witnesses or apprehension of threat to complainant or witnesses; (iii) reasonable possibility of securing presence of accused at the time of trial or likelihood of his abscondence; (iv) character behaviour and standing of accused and circumstances which are peculiar to accused; (v) larger interest of public or State and similar other considerations – Such consideration including as to “flight risk” is to be made on individual basis being uninfluenced by unconnected cases, more so, when personal liberty is involved. (Para 22)

(C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439 – Bail – INX Media case – Charge-sheet has been filed against appellant and his son and others including officials by CBI under Section 120B IPC read with Section 420 IPC, Sections 468 and 471 IPC and under Section 9 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act – Appellant is a Member of Parliament – Appellant is not a “flight risk”; more so, when appellant has surrendered his passport and when there is a “lookout notice” issued against appellant – Till date, there has been no allegation regarding influencing of any witness by appellant or his men directly or indirectly – Mere averments that appellant approached witnesses and assertion that appellant would further pressurize witnesses, without any material basis cannot be reason to deny regular bail to appellant, more so, when appellant has been in custody for nearly two months, co-operated with investigating agency and charge sheet is also filed – Appellant is not a “flight risk” and in view of conditions imposed, there is no possibility of his abscondence from trial – Co-accused were already granted bail – Appellant is aged 74 years and is also said to be suffering from age related health problems – appellant is entitled to be granted bail – Impugned judgment passed by High Court of Delhi in Bail Application set aside and bail granted to appellant. (Paras 27, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33)

Facts of the case:

Appeal relates to alleged irregularities in Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) clearance given to INX Media for receiving foreign investment to the tune of Rs.305 Crores against approved inflow of Rs.4.62 Crores. Briefly. By impugned judgment dated 30.09.2019 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Bail Application No.2270 of 2019 in and by which High Court refused to grant bail to the appellant in the case registered by the respondent-Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) under Section 120B IPC read with Section 420 IPC, Section 8 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Findings of Court:

In these applications, there were no allegations that the appellant was trying to influence witnesses and that any material witnesses (accused) have been approached not to disclose information about the appellant and his son. In absence of any contemporaneous materials, no weight could be attached to the allegation that the appellant has been influencing the witnesses by approaching the witnesses.

Result : Appeal allowed. Bail granted.