High Court of Delhi
HIMA KOHLI, J.
Mahesh Kumar & Others
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation & Another
Bail Appln. Nos. 1268, 1273, 1274, 1255 of 2013
Decided On : 27-09-2013
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 438 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 120B - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7, 8 & 12 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 21 - Bail - Condition for bail - Power of Court - Accused No.1 in concert with the other accused had entered into a conspiracy to achieve a common object - Mobilizing bribe money and ensure appointment - Charge-sheet shows prima facie a case of conspiracy - Allegations have to be taken on their face value - The Court must ensure that there is no pre-judging and no prejudice is caused to either side, and the merits of the case must be left to be decided by the trial court - Grant or refusal to grant bail lies within the discretion of the Court - Right to bail is not to be denied merely because of the sentiments of the community against the accused - Seriousness of the charge and the severity of the punishment are also a relevant consideration while examining the bail applications.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 438 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 120B - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7, 8 & 12 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 21 - Bail - Charge is of a conspiracy - Bribery - Accused persons were working in tandem to mobilize illegal gratification to secure a plum post for the accused No.1 - There was exchange of pecuniary advantage that was agreed to be extended to accused No.4 - Maximum punishment prescribed by the Legislature for the said offence is imprisonment for five years - Evidence is mainly in the form of telephonic conversation and recovery of cash - Petitioners would attempt to erase the evidence is quite remote - Investigation has been completed, charge-sheet has also been filed - Telephonic conversation have been forwarded to the CFSL for analysis - No allegation of interference in investigation - Prosecution has cited ninety witnesses, filed a number of documents and the report of the CFSL in respect of the voice samples sent for comparison shall take about two months' time - Petitioners have remained in custody for about one hundred and forty days - Detaining the petitioners in jail for an indefinite period as that would bean antithesis of the principles of personal liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution - Held, petitioners shall be enlarged on bail.
Hima Kohli, J.
1. The present common order shall decide the bail applications of Mr. Mahesh Kumar (petitioner in Bail Application No.1268/2013), Mr. N.R. Manjunath (petitioner in Bail Application No.1273/2013), Mr. Vijay Singla (petitioner in Bail Application No.1255/2013) and Mr. Sandeep Goyal (petitioner in Bail Application No.1274/2013), arising out of Charge-sheet No.3/2013 dated 2.7.2013 for the offences under Section 120B IPC read with Sections 7, 8 & 12 of the PC Act, 1988 in case FIR No.RC-2172013A0004.
2. The brief facts of the case registered by the respondent/CBI on 3.5.2013, are that it had received information that Mr. Mahesh Kumar (accused No.1), Member (Staff), Railway Board, was in regular contact with Mr. N.R. Manjunath (accused No.2), Managing Director of M/s. G.G. Tronics India Pvt. Ltd., and was trying to get a posting as Member (Electrical), Railway Board by illegal and wrongful means.
3. As per the charge-sheet, Mr. Mahesh Kumar and Mr. N.R. Manjunath were in contact with a private businessman/industrialist by the name of Mr. Sandeep Goyal (accused No.3), a resident of Panchkula, Haryana, who had given an assurance that he was in a position to get the aforesaid work done for them through his contacts with Mr. Vijay Singla (accused No.4), also a resident of Chandigarh, who happened to be the nephew of Mr. Pawan Kumar Bansal, the then Railway Minister, Central Government, by using his personal influence for pecuniary gratification. It has been alleged that for making efforts to get the posting of choice for Mr. Mahesh Kumar, Mr. Sandeep Goyal had demanded an illegal gratification to the tune of Rs.10.00 crores from Mr. Mahesh Kumar, through Mr. N.R. Manjunath. The aforesaid demand raised by Mr. Sandeep Goyal was accepted by Mr. Mahesh Kumar and it was agreed that Rs.5.00 crores would be paid in cash before the appointment and the balance amount of Rs.5.00 crores after his appointment as Member (Electrical), Railway Board.
4. As per the respondent/CBI, Mr. N.R. Manjunath and two other accused, namely, Mr. Rahul Yadav (accused No.6) and Mr. Sameer Sandhir (accused No.7), both businessmen/industrialists, who were having dealings with the Railways, thought that if they would manage to get Mr. Mahesh Kumar posted as Member (Electrical), Railway Board, they would stand to gain in their business. In fact, the chargesheet states that Mr. Mahesh Kumar had promised Mr. N.R. Manjunath, Mr. Rahul Yadav and Mr. Sameer Sandhir that if appointed to the aforesaid post, he would oblige them by extending official favours to them. Based on the aforesaid assurance given by Mr.Mahesh Kumar, Mr. N.R. Manjunath had agreed to arrange a sum of Rs.2.00 crores for paying the illegal gratification to Mr. Sandeep Goyal, by approaching other businessmen/industrialists who had dealings with the Railways for garnering the said funds. It is alleged that for executing this plan, Mr. Sandeep Goyal had demanded an illegal gratification of Rs.2.00 crores to be paid immediately and he had agreed that the balance amount could be paid after Mr. Mahesh Kumar was appointed to the post of Member (Electrical), Railway Board.
5. According to the charge-sheet, the aforesaid offer was being vigorously pursued by Mr. N.R. Manjunath, Mr. Sandeep Goyal and Mr. Vijay Singla. In the meantime, Mr. Mahesh Kumar came to be appointed as Member (Staff), Railway Board on 18.4.2013. When Mr.N.R. Manjunath, Mr. Sandeep Goyal and Mr. Vijay Singla realized that they could not manage the desired appointment for Mr. Mahesh Kumar, the latter asked Mr. N.R. Manjunath and Mr. Sandeep Goyal to explore another option and manage for him the additional charge of S&T Directorate from the portfolio of Member (Electrical), Railway Board alongwith the additional charge of General Manager, Western Railways.
6. Finally, on 30.4.2013, Mr. N.R. Manjunath had allegedly informed Mr. Sandeep Goyal that 25% of the illegal gratification would be paid to him if the second opt
Vivek Kumar Vs. State of U.P. reported as 2000 (9) SCC 443
Babba @ Shankar Raghuman Rohda Vs. State of Bihar reported as 2005(11) SCC 569
State of Kerala v. Raneef reported as 2011 (1) SCC 784].
Dipak Shubhashchandra Mehta v. CBI, reported as 2012 (4) SCC 134
Gurcharan Singh and Ors. Vs. State AIR 1978 SC 179
Vaman Narain Ghiya v. State of Rajasthan reported as (2009) 2 SCC 281
Puran Etc. Vs. Rambilas & Anr. (2001) 6 SCC 338
Ram Govind Upadhyay Vs. Sudarshan Singh and Ors. (2002) 3 SCC 598
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav & Anr
Bhagirathsinh s/o Mahipat Singh Judeja Vs. State of Gujarat reported as (1984) 1 SCC 284
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.