Back
2012 (2) GCD 1134 (SC)
Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam &
Hon’ble Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar
Dipak Shubhashchandra Mehta
Versus
C.B.I. & Anr.
Criminal Appeal No. 348 of 20121—Decided on 10/02/2012
(a) [Indian] Penal Code, 1860 (Central Act 45 of 1860) — Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974) — Section 439 — Bail — Grant of — Scope — Finding of — Applicant along with others are charged with economic offences — He is in custody since 31.03.2010 except the period of interim bail — Investigation in the case has been completed and charge sheet including additional charges-sheet has been submitted but it is a fact that necessary charges has yet not been framed — The presence of the appellant in custody is also not necessary for further investigation — In view of the same, and considering the health condition as supported by the documents including the certificate of the Medical Officer Central Jail Dispensary Court held appellant entitle to an order of bail pending trial on stringent conditions to safe guard interest of CB9 — Court therefore allowing the appeal of the appellant ordered him to be released on bail on conditions indicated.
Held :
Court is conscious of the fact that the present appellant along with the others are charged with economic offences of huge magnitude. At the same time, Court cannot lose sight of the fact that though the Investigating Agency has completed the investigation and submitted the charge sheet including additional charge sheet, the fact remains that the necessary charges have not been framed, therefore, the presence of the appellant in custody may not be necessary for further investigation. In view of the same, considering the health condition as supported by the documents including the certificate of the Medical Officer, Central Jail Dispensary, Court is of the view that the appellant is entitled to an order of bail pending trial on stringent conditions in order to safe guard the interest of the CBI. [Para 19]
(b) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974) — Section 439 — Bail — Grant of — Consideration indicated.
Held :
The Court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail, a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted, particularly, where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. The Court granting bail has to consider, among other circumstances, the factors such as (a) the nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence; (b) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant and; (c) prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. In addition to the same, the Court while considering a petition for grant of bail in a non-bailable offence apart from the seriousness of the offence, likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and tampering with the prosecution witnesses, have to be noted. [Para 18]
Law Laid Down :
When there is a delay in the trial bail should be granted to the accused.
P. Sathasivam, J.—Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.10.2011 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Misc. Application No. 14224 of 2011 whereby the High Court rejected the application for regular bail filed by the appellant herein.
3. Brief facts:
(a) The appellant herein is the Joint Managing Director of Vishal Exports Overseas Ltd., a Public Limited Company (hereinafter referred to as “the Company”) incorporated in the year 1988 as a partnership firm which was converted into a Public Limited Company in 1995 under the provisions of Chapter IX of the Companies Act, 1956. The Company is engaged in the business of import and export of diverse commodities including agricultural products and diamonds. According to the appellant, the Company was a Government of India recognized Four Star Trading House with a turnover of about Rs.3935 crores in the year 2005-2006. It is also his claim that the Company has been accredited with many awards and was ranked 1st in India under the merchant exporter category in the years 2003-04 and 2005-06.
(b) Due to non-payment of advances from various banks, complaints were filed against the Company as well as the promoters and Directors. The FIRs filed by various banks are:
(i) In the year 2008, Punjab National Bank lodged an FIR with CBI bearing No. RC-I(E)/2008/BSFC, Mumbai. In the said case, only Pradip Shubhashchandra Mehta (A-3) was arrested. Remand was not granted by the Special CBI Court at Ahmedabad and bail was granted within a span of one day. The appellant herein was not arrested in this case and formal bail was granted to him on filing charge sheet.
(ii) In the year 2009, UCO Bank lodged an FIR with the CBI bearing No. RC 12(E)/2009 in which charge sheet was submitted on 15.11.2010 and the appellant was arrested on 1.11.2010 and was released on temporary bail for various durations.
(iii) Vijaya Bank had also lodged an FIR with the CBI bearing No. RC11(E)/2008 and submitted charge sheet on 26.06.2010 in which the appellant herein was arrested after filing of the charge sheet, he was also granted bail.
(iv) State Bank of Hyderabad has also lodged an FIR and the same is under investigation. No charge sheet has been submitted so far.
(c) State Bank of India and 17 other banks filed O.A. No. 11 of 2008 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Ahmedabad seeking recovery of amount given by way of credit facilities under consortium arrangement to the Company. Ad-interim orders have been passed on 28.02.2008 to secure the interest of the banks and to ensure that the litigation does not become meaningless by the time final order is passed.
(d) On 19.01.2010, the appellant herein filed Civil Suit No. 145 of 2010 seeking damages to the tune of Rs.786 crores against the informant Andhra Bank and other banks before the Ahmedabad City Civil Court. The Andhra Bank, Zonal Office, Mumbai also lodged an FIR on 19.01.2010 which was registered by the CBI BS & FC/MUM bearing No. 1(E)/2010 for commission of offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘IPC’). In connection with the said FIR, the appellant herein was arrested on 31.03.2010 and remanded to police custody till 03.04.2010 and thereafter in the judicial custody. The appellant was granted temporary bail on three occasions on medical ground. After completing the investigation, the CBI submitted charge sheet on 10.06.2010 in which the appellant was arrayed as accused No. 4.
(e) On 31.08.2010, the appellant preferred an application for bail after charge sheet was filed before the Special Court vide Criminal Misc. Application No. 141 of 2010 but the same was dismissed.
(f) Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 11415 of 2010 before the High Court for regular bail in connection with the FIR lodged by Andhra Bank, Zonal Office Mumbai bearing No. 1(E)/2010 which was dism
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
