2011 Supreme(Del) 958
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Ajit Bharihoke, J.
Sharad Kumar - Appellant
Versus
Central Bureau Of Investigation - Respondent
Bail Application No. 723/2011 with Bail Application No. 724/2011
Decided On : 06-08-2011
Mr. Altaf Ahmed, Sr. Advocate with Mr. R. Shunmughasundaram, Sr. Advocate, Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Advocate, Mr. S.J. Aristotle, Advocate & Mr. Sudershan Rajan, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. U.U. Lalit, Sr.Advocate/Special Public Prosecutor with Ms. Sonia Mathur, Advocate & Mr. Sushil Dubey, Advocate for the Respondent.
Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 87, 88, 204, 437 & 439 – Warrant case – Magistrate issuing summons to the accused to appear instead of warrant of arrest – Denial of bail on appearance – Magistrate not bound to release the accused on the bond of personal appearance merely because he issued summons for appearance – Issuance of summons is no assurance that on appearance bail will be granted – Accused persons alleged to be recipient of bribe money for the favour done by Minister of Communications – Accused persons wielding influence likely to temper with evidence – Bail refused.
Ajit Bharihoke, J.
1. Accused Ms. Kanimozhi Karunanithi and Sharad Kumar vide above referred applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. are seeking bail in case FIR No. RC-DAI-2009-A-0045 P.S. ACB, CBI New Delhi.
2. Briefly stated, facts relevant for the above bail applications are that on 21.10.2009, the Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti Corruption Branch, New Delhi registered a case No. RC DAI-2009-A-0045 on the allegations of criminal conspiracy and criminal misconduct against unknown officials of Department of Telecommunications, Govt. of India, unknown private persons/companies and others under Section 120-B IPC, 13(2) read with 13(a)(d) of P.C. Act, in respect of allotment of Letters of Intent, Unified Access Services (UAS) Licences and 2G spectrum by the Department of Telecommunications.
3. First charge sheet was filed on 02.04.2011 in the court of Special Judge, Patiala House, New Delhi against 12 accused persons including M/s. Swan Telecom Pvt. Ltd. and its directors Shahid Balwa and Vinod Goenka for the offences punishable under Section 120-B, 420, 468, 471 of IPC and Section 109 read with 420 IPC, as also under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988.
4. A supplementary charge sheet was filed in the above mentioned case on 25.04.2011 against five accused persons including the petitioners for offences under Section 120B IPC read with Section 7/11 and 12 of P.C. Act, 1988.
5. Briefly put, case of the prosecution is that earlier to accused A.Raja taking over as Minister for Communications and Information Technology, the departmental policy of DOT regarding grant of Unified Access Services Licence (UASL) was first come first serve subject to eligibility and after the issue of Letter of Intent (LOI) to the successful applicant, he was given sufficient time to comply with the conditions of LOI and deposit of the licence fee.
6. In order to achieve the end of conspiracy, accused R.K. Chandolia on 24th September 2007 inquired from the concerned officer of "Access Services Cell" of Department of Telecommunication if the applications of Unitech Group of Companies for grant of UAS Licences were received and instructed that after the receipt of their applications, no further applications be accepted. PW Avdesh Kumar Srivastava, DDG(AS-I) told R.K. Chandolia that it may not be proper/fair to abruptly refuse to receive the applications. A note dated 24th September, 2007 in this regard was initiated by the Department on instructions of R.K. Chandolia. Accused A.Raja approved the note and ordered issue of press note informing public about the cut off date 01.10.2007 for acceptance of the applications for UASL. A Press Release was accordingly published in Newspapers on 25th September, 2007. Though hundreds of applications were received after 25th September, 2007, those applications were not considered for issue of UAS Licence.
7. Charge sheet also disclose that as per the existing policy, the allottees of Letters of Intent (LOI) were given sufficient time to comply with the conditions of LOI. The licences were issued on the basis of seniority of the date of applications and after the issue of UAS Licences, the licensee could apply for allocation of spectrum.
8. On 2nd November, 2007, Director (AS-I) DOT initiated a note seeking for issue of Letters of Intent as per the existing policy of first come first served. The then Telecom Secretary returned the file with the noting, "action may be initiated after orders of MOC & IT are obtained on the issue. He had expressed his desire to discuss this further." A fresh note was put up by Director (AS-I) of DOT on 7th November, 2007 highlighting the existing policy and pointing out that a policy statement in that regard was made in Rajya Sabha on 23rd August, 2007. A draft Letter of Intent was also put up along with the note for approval of the Minister. Accused A.Raja approved the note, but deliberately replaced Para 3 of the draft LOI with the following: "the date of payment of entry fee