2010 (3) GCD 2368 (Guj)
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh H. Shukla
Yashpal Jitubha Chudasama
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.
Criminal Misc. Application No. 10365 of 2010—Decided on 21/09/2010
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974) — Section 438 — [Indian] Penal Code, 1860 (Central Act 45 of 1860) — Sections 120(B), 364, 365, 368, 341, 342, 302, 384 and 201 — Anticipatory bail — Admissibility — Scope of — In the case charge sheet has been filed accusing the applicant accused for involvement and active participation in the main conspiracy and the incident of take encounter extortion but no maternal has been placed before the Court — Even if the accusation made by prosecution agency CBI is accepted at the face value and the statement of two witnesses deposing against applicant it would only attribute offence under Section 201 IPC against him which is bailable — There is no evidence to connect or suggest the involvement of the applicant accused for conspiracy — It is in these circumstances while maintaining the balance between the right of the accused and the investigating agency CBI Court allowed the application with conditions.
Held :
It is in light of this the submissions have been canvassed that even if the accusation made by the prosecuting agency, CBI, is accepted at the face value and the statements of the two witnesses along with the transcript is read as it is, at best it would attribute the applicant with the role and offence under Section 201 of IPC and there is no evidence to connect or suggest the involvement of the applicant accused for conspiracy.
[Para 39]
Therefore, without any further elaboration, the aspect which is required to be considered is with regard to charge of conspiracy and also the prima facie case suggesting involvement of the applicant accused in a larger or the main conspiracy and active participation. The material, as discussed above, in the opinion of this Court, do not support the submissions made by learned Counsel Mr. Ravani for the CBI. The accusation may be serious, but there has to be a prima facie case suggesting the involvement, which, as discussed above, cannot be said to has been substantiated prima facie. [Para 41]
It is in these circumstances, while maintaining the balance between the right of the accused and the investigating agency-CBI, the Court is of the opinion that the present application deserves to be allowed. [Para 48]
Law Laid Down :
An over generous infusion of constraints and conditions which are not found in Section 438 Criminal Procedure Code can make provision constitutionally vulnerable.
Rajesh H. Shukla, J.—The present application has been filed by the applicant-original accused No. 18 for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code in connection with CBI Case No. RCBS1/2010/S/0004-MUM registered with C.B.I., Mumbai for the alleged offences under Sections 120(B), 364, 365, 368, 341, 342, 302, 384 and 201 of IPC.
2. Sr. Counsel Mr. Uday Lalit appearing with learned Counsel Mr. J.M. Panchal for the applicant submitted that the charge sheet has been filed by the respondent No. 1-CBI, which is at Page 50, and the applicant has been shown as ‘not arrested’. Learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Lalit submitted that the applicant is the Director of the Co-operative Bank and the gravamen of the charges levelled against the present applicant-accused may be considered, which have not been appreciated by the trial Court.
3. Learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Lalit referred to the charge sheet and pointedly referred to Paras 37, 38, 42, 46 and 48 and submitted that, as stated in Para 46 referring to the present applicant, the offence alleged is under Section 201 of IPC. However, Learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Lalit submitted that even in Para 37 and 38, what has been attributed is influencing the witnesses to conceal from CBI, though Para 38 refers to his involvement in the conspiracy.
4. Learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Lalit submitted that the incident of fake encounter has taken place in the year 2005 and the case has been investigated by CBI, as per the direction of the Hon’ble Apex Court, in 2010, after the Hon’ble Apex Court passed the order dated 10.1.2010. Learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Lalit, therefore, submitted that the person could not be a part of the conspiracy after years of the incident having taken place.
5. He emphasised and submitted that the conspiracy could be attributed before or during the pendency or immediately thereafter regarding the involvement or the role played by the accused. Learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Lalit submitted that there is no role attributed to the present applicant-accused except what is referred to hereinabove. However, he emphasised that in Para 38 of the charge sheet only one line, which he pointedly referred and emphasised, has been added, viz. “The audio-visual records also indicate that these two accused viz. Ajay Patel (A-17) and Shri Yashpal Chudasama (A-18) had actively participated in the main conspiracy and the crime committed in furtherance to the conspiracy.”
6. Learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Lalit, therefore, submitted that from the material and evidence, which has been submitted with the charge sheet, by no stretch of imagination it could be said that there is any kind of participation or involvement of the present applicant in the main conspiracy with regard to the fake encounter, much less any active participation. Therefore, Learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Lalit submitted that, on the one hand, the respondent CBI has filed a charge sheet accusing the present applicant of conspiracy and active participation in the main conspiracy and, on the other, except the statement of two brothers and the transcript, there is nothing to substantiate the allegation except bare words. He emphasised and submitted that on the one hand it is claimed that the applicant has actively participated in the main conspiracy for which the aforesaid offences are registered, whereas the material do not indicate any role, except, at the most, for offence under Section 201 of IPC. He, therefore, strenuously submitted that on the one hand the accusations are made for involvement in the conspiracy without any material to substantiate it and on the other hand it is submitted that the investigation is going on and which is not over and therefore this application may not be entertained.
7. Learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Lalit, therefore, submitted that taking the case of CBI regarding the accusations or charges levelled against the present accused on demurrer - at the face value – at the highest the accused could be attributed with the rol
SupremeToday
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.