Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V.K.Shali, J.
Sharad Kumar - Appellant
Versus
CBI - Respondent
Bail Appl. No. 1565/2011, Bail Appl. No. 1567/2011, Bail Appl. No. 1564/2011, Bail Appl. No. 1566/2011 & Bail Appl. No. 1568/2011
Decided On : 28-11-2011
Penal Code, 1860 - Section 120B – Bail – 2G Spectrum Case – It is not open to the court to differentiate the fact of the present case to facts of Sanjay Chandra's Case – Benefit of the said judgment on the basis of parity cannot be extended to the petitioner – The case of the petitioner stands on the better footing – As the offence charged carries five years of punishment – Petitioner ought not to be denied the benefit of bail – Court is expected to exercise its own judgment – Petitioner are influential or moneyed persons having extensive clout political – However most of the evidences is documentary – No prima-facie evidence to persuade the court to doubt or reason to believe that petitioner will create non conducive condition to hold the free and fair trial – CBI has no objection if the bail granted – Held bail cannot be denied to the petitioner.
V.K. Shali, J.
1. These are five bail applications of Asif Balwa (A-13), Rajiv B.Aggarwal (A-14), Karim Morani (A-15), Sharad Kumar (A-16) and Kanimozhi Karunanithi (A-17) for grant of regular bail in respect of 2G Spectrum Scam case, which were registered vide RC DAI 2009 A 0045 by the CBI. All these applications are disposed of by a common order as they are interconnected and, moreover, the stand of the CBI in all these applications is common.
2. Briefly stated that the facts of the case are that on 21.10.2009, Anti Corruption Branch of CBI had registered the aforesaid FIR on the allegations of criminal conspiracy and criminal misconduct against the unknown officials of Department of Telecommunications, Government of India and some unknown private persons/companies and others under Section 120B IPC and under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in respect of allotment of Letters of Intent, Unified Access Services (hereinafter referred to as "UAS") Licenses and 2G Spectrum by the Department of Telecommunications. CBI had filed the first charge sheet on 02.04.2011 in the Court of learned Special Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi against A.Raja, the then Minister of Communications and Information Technology (A-1), Siddhartha Behura, the then Secretary, Telecom (A-2), R.K.Chandolia, the then P.S. to the Minister (A-3), Shahid Balwa and Vinod Goenka, Directors, M/s Swan Telecom Pvt. Ltd. (A-4 and A-5 respectively). M/s Swan Telecom Pvt. Ltd (A-6), Sanjay Chandra, Managing Director, M/s Unitech Wireless Tamil Nadu Ltd. (A-7), M/s Unitech Wireless Tamil Nadu Ltd. (A-8), Gautam Doshi, Group Managing Director of Reliance, ADA Group (A-9), Surendra Pipara, Group President of Reliance, Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group (A-10), Hari Nair, Sr. Vice President of Reliance, ADA Group (A-11) and M/s Reliance Telecom Ltd. (A-12).
3. A supplementary charge sheet was filed in respect of this very FIR on 25.4.2011 in the Court of learned Special Judge for offences under Section 120B IPC read with Section 7/11/12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against Asif Balwa (A-13) of M/s Kusegaon Fruits & Vegetables Pvt. Ltd., Rajiv B.Agarwal (A-14), Director, Kusegaon Fruits & Vegetables Pvt. Ltd., Karim Morani (A-15) of M/s.Cineyug Media & Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., Sharad Kumar (A-16), Director/Promoter of M/s.Kalaignar TV Pvt. Ltd. and Kanimozhi (A-17) Promoter/Stakeholder of M/s Kalaignar TV Pvt. Ltd. In addition to this, the charge sheet also named A-1, A-4 and A-5.
4. An attempt was made by A-16 and A-17 to get regular bail before the Court of Special Judge and the High Court, which proved to be unsuccessful, whereupon SLP(Crl.) Nos. 4584-4585/2011 were filed by them before the Supreme Court in which order was passed on 20.06.2011, dismissing the SLPs but giving the liberty to the accused persons to renew the applications for bail after framing of the charges. Similar attempt had been made by some other accused persons but I am not referring to the same as nothing turns on it. The orders on the SLP's of A-16 and A-17 have been referred, by way of sequence of important events, which took place.
5. All the petitioners renewed their applications for grant of regular bail in terms of the liberty granted by the Supreme Court after framing of the charges on 22.10.2011, but these applications were also rejected by the learned Special Judge, which lead to the filing of the present bail applications before this Court.
6. In the meantime, Supreme Court in another batch of Criminal Appeal Nos. 2178 to 2182 of 2011, arising out of the SLP(Crl.), pending before it, passed orders on 23.11.2011, granting regular bail to A-6, A-8, A-9, A-10 and A-11, who were sent for trial by virtue of the first charge sheet.
7. Though, the present batch of bail applications were listed for hearing on 01.12.2011, however, on account of the applications of the co-accused having been allowed by the Supreme Court and the applications on be
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
