Pratibha Rani, J. (Oral):--

Crl. M.A. No. 13617/2014 (Exemption)

1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Application stands disposed of.

Bail Appln. No. 1946/2014

1. The Petitioner Lt. Gen. Tejinder Singh (Retd.) has been chargesheeted in RC No. AC-1(2012)A/0014/CBI, New Delhi for committing the offence punishable under Section 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. The case RC No. AC-1(2012)A/0014/CBI, New Delhi was registered on 19.10.2012 on the basis of complaint made by Gen. V.K. Singh (Retd.) in respect of the incident that allegedly took place in his office on 22.09.2010.

3. During investigation, the Petitioner was not arrested and while filing the chargesheet No. 04 dated 15.07.2014 in RC No. AC-1(2012)A/0014/CBI, New Delhi, in column No. 11(A)(xii) where date of arrest was required to be mentioned, it is shown as ‘Not Arrested’.

4. After the cognizance of the offence was taken by learned Special Judge/CBI, the Petitioner was summoned by learned Trial Court. On 01.09.2014 the Petitioner appeared before the Court alongwith his counsel and filed an application under Section 437 Cr.P.C. praying for his release on bail. After hearing learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Senior PP for the CBI, the prayer of the Petitioner for release on bail was rejected.

5. Now the Petitioner is seeking bail in the instant case on the following grounds:-

(i) The Petitioner had a distinguished career in Indian Army spread over 39½ years and he retired as Lt. General in July, 2010. During his tenure as above, he had unblemished record.

(ii) The Petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and there is no legally admissible material against him.

(iii) The Petitioner filed a criminal complaint for defamation when a false statement was made by Gen. V.K. Singh (Retd.) against the Petitioner and instant case is a counterblast of the same.

(iv) The Petitioner has appeared before learned Trial Court on the first date and there is no chance of his fleeing from justice or influencing the witnesses or tampering with the evidence.

(v) The impugned order has been passed against the well established legal principles laid down in catena of judgments.

(vi) The chargesheet was filed against the Petitioner by the CBI without arresting the Petitioner and the same Special Judge/CBI had been releasing the accused persons on bail in all such cases where chargesheet had been filed without arrest.

(vii) The investigation in the matter is complete, chargesheet has been filed, cognizance has been taken and the material proposed to be proved by the CBI against the Petitioner is documentary in nature and already in the custody of the Court, thus, there is no apprehension of tampering with the evidence.

(viii) The Petitioner is a senior citizen suffering from various ailments.

(ix) The statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the witnesses including that of the then Defence Minister does not support the prosecution’s case.

6. Reply to the bail application has been filed by the CBI wherein it is stated that RC No. AC-1(2012)A/0014/CBI, New Delhi was registered against the Petitioner as on 22.09.2010 he allegedly offered bribe of Rs. 14 Crores on behalf of one Ravi Rishi to Gen. V.K. Singh (Retd.), the then Chief of Army Staff (COAS), to clear the file for procurement of Tatra Vehicles by the first week of October. It is further submitted that chargesheet in this case was filed on 15.07.2014, cognizance was taken by learned Special Judge/CBI on 28.08.2014 and Petitioner was summoned as an accused by learned Special Judge/CBI for 01.09.2014. When the Petitioner appeared on 01.09.2014, the bail application moved by the Petitioner has been dismissed by learned Special Judge/CBI giving reasons for rejection. Thus, the order dated 01.09.2014 passed by leaned Special Judge/CBI is fair and in accordance with law suffering from no legal infirmities. It is also stated that the Petitioner being high rank Officer in prestigious Indian Army offered bribe