Back
2012 (1) N.C.C. 666
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam and Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar
DIPAK SHUBHASHCHANDRA MEHTA – Appellant
Versus
C.B.I. & ANR. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 348 of 2012
Decided on : 10.02.2012
(B) Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 21 — Bail — When under trial prisoners are detained in jail custody to an indefinite period, Art. 21 of Constitution is violated. (Paras 16 and 17)
(C) Bail — Granting of — Exercise by Court in — Considerations — 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 documents of merits of the case need not be undertaken — Yet 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. (Para 18)
(D) Bail — Granting of — Factors considered — Charge of economic offences of huge magnitude — Fact that necessary charges were not framed — Therefore, the presence of the accused in custody not necessary for further investigation — Also, considering health condition of the accused and certificate of Medical Officer — Accused entitled to an order of bail pending trial — And order to be released on bail on executing a bond with two solvent sureties, each in a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs to the satisfaction of Special Judge concerned on following stringent conditions — (i) the appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts to the Court or to any other authority — (ii) the appellant shall remain present before the Court on the dates fixed for hearing of the case, for any reason due to unavoidable circumstances for remaining absent he has to give intimation to the Court and also to the concerned officer of CBI and make a proper application that he may be permitted to be present through counsel — (iii) the appellant shall surrender his passport, if any, if not already surrendered and in case if he is not a holder of the same, he shall file an affidavit — (iv) In case he has already surrendered the Passport before the Special Judge, CBI, that fact should be supported by an affidavit — (v) Liberty is given to the CBI to make an appropriate application for modification/recalling the present order passed by us, if the appellant violates any of the conditions imposed by this Court.
(Para 20)
¼v½ tekur & dk vkns'k & mPp U;k;ky; }kjk Lohdk;Z ;k vLohdk;Z & vorfjr ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; dk flok; dqN [kkl ijh{k.kksa ds] mPp U;k;ky; }kjk tekur ds ekU; ;k vekU; ds vkns'kksa esa n[ky ughaA ¼izLrj 6½ ¼c½ Hkkjrh; lafo/kku] 1950] vuqPNsn 21 & tekur & tc ijh{k.k ds rgr dSfn;ksa dks tsy fgjklr esa ,d vfuf'pr vof/k ds fy, fgjklr esa j[kk x;k gks rc ;g lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 21 dk mYya?ku gSA ¼izLrj 16 vkSj 17½ ¼l½ tekur nsus dk U;k;ky; }kjk O;k;ke & fopkj & foosdiw.kZ rjhds ls vius foosd dk iz;ksx dj vnkyr dks tekur nsus ij fopkj djuk pkfg, u fd ikB~;Øe ds ,d ekeys ds :i esa & gkykafd tekur nsus esa lcwr vkSj O;kid nLrkostksa dh ,d foLr`r ijh{kk dh t:jr ugha & ;|fi ;g fn[kkus dh vko';drk gS fd izFke n`"V;k esa tekur D;ksa nh xbZ & fo'ks"k :i ls] tgka ,d xaHkhj vijk/k dk vkjksi yxk;k x;k Fkk vfHk;qDr ijA ¼izLrj 18½ ¼n½ tekur nsus dk dkjd ekuk tkrk gS & fo'kky ifjek.k dh vkfFkZd vijk/kksa dk izHkkj & rF; gS fd vko';d vkjksi ugha r; fd, x, Fks blfy, vfHk;qDr dh fgjklr esa mifLFkfr vkxs dh tkap iM+rky ds fy, vko';d ugha gS & blds vykok] vfHk;qDr ds LokLF; dh fLFkfr fpfdRlk vf/kdkjh ds izek.k i= ij fopkj & vfHk;qDr tekur yafcr ijh{k.k ds ,d vkns'k ds fy, gdnkj & vkns'k fd nks sureties, ikap yk[k #i;s dh jkf'k esa izR;sd ds lkFk ,d ckaM dks fØ;kfUor djus ij tekur ij fjgk gS & l[r 'krks± dk ikyu djus ij fo'ks"k U;k;k/kh'k dh larqf"V ij (i) ;fn vihykFkhZ lh/ks ;k ijks{k :i ls fdlh Hkh izyksHku] /kedh ;k fdlh Hkh O;fDr dks mi;ksx ugha djsxk bl ekeys ds rF;ksa ds lkFk ifjfpr djus ds fy, ;k rF;ksa dk [kqyklk djus ds fy, U;k;ky; esa ;k fdlh vU; izkf/kdkjh ls (ii) vihydrkZ ekeys dh lquokbZ ds fy, fu/kkZfjr rkjh[kksa ij U;k;ky; ds le{k ekStwn jgs] ;k fdlh vifjgk;Z ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds dkj.k vuqifLFkr gksus ij vnkyr esa lwpuk ns & lhchvkbZ ds lacaf/kr vf/kdkjh mls lwpuk nsa fd odhy ds ek/;e ls mifLFkr gksus ds fy, vuqefr nh tk lds & (iii) vihykFkhZ viuk ikliksVZ tek djk,] ;fn dksbZ gks] vxj igys ls gh vkReleiZ.k ugha gS vkSj vxj og /kkjd ugha gS] rks og ,d gyQukek nk;j djs & (iv) vxj igys ls gh fo'ks"k U;k;k/kh'k] lhchvkbZ ds ikl ikliksVZ tek gS rks ;g ,d 'kiFk i= ds }kjk lefFkZr gksuk pkfg, & (v) lhchvkbZ dks vf/kdkj fn;k tkrk gS fd ,d mi;qDr vkosnu djs la'kks/ku orZeku esa gekjs }kjk ikfjr vkns'k dks okil cqykus ds fy, ;fn vihykFkhZ bl U;k;ky; }kjk yxk;h 'krks± esa fdlh dk Hkh mYya?ku djrh gSA ¼izLrj 20½
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. RC 2(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
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
