Advocates:
ARVIND KUMAR SHARMA

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2178 OF 2011

(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5650 of 2011)

Sanjay Chandra

………… Appellant

versus

CBI

………… Respondent

along with

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2179 OF 2011

(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5902 of 2011)

Vinod Goenka

………… Appellant

versus

Central Bureau of Investigation

………… Respondent

along with

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2180 OF 2011

(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 6190 of 2011)

1

Gautam Doshi

………… Appellant

versus

Central Bureau of Investigation ………… Respondent

along with

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2181 OF 2011

(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 6288 of 2011)

Hari Nair

………… Appellant

versus

Central Bureau of Investigation

………… Respondent

along with

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2182 OF 2011

(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 6315 of 2011)

Surendra Pipara

………… Appellant

versus

Central Bureau of Investigation ………… Respondent

J U D G M E N T

H.L. DATTU, J.

2

1) Leave granted in all the Special Leave

Petitions.

2)

These appeals are directed against the common

Judgment and Order of the learned Single Judge

of the High Court of Delhi, dated 23^rd May 2011

in Bail Application No. 508/2011, Bail

Application No. 509/2011 & Crl. M.A. 653/2011,

Bail Application No. 510/2011, Bail Application

No. 511/2011 and Bail Application No. 512/2011,

by which the learned Single Judge refused to

grant bail to the accused-appellants. These

cases were argued together and submitted for

decision as one case.

3) The offence alleged against each of the

accused, as noticed by the Ld. Special Judge,

CBI, New Delhi, who rejected bail applications

of the appellants, vide his order dated

20.4.2011, is extracted for easy reference :

Sanjay Chandra (A7) in Crl. Appeal No. 2178 of

2011 [arising out of SLP (Crl.)No.5650 of 2011]:

3

“6. The allegations against

accused Sanjay Chandra are that he

entered into criminal conspiracy

with accused A. Raja, R.K.

Chandolia and other accused

persons during September 2009 to

get UAS licence for providing

telecom services to otherwise an

ineligible company to get UAS

licences. He, as Managing Director

of M/s Unitech Wireless (Tamil

Nadu) Limited, was looking after

the business of telecom through 8

group

companies

of

Unitech

Limited. The first-come-first-

served procedure of allocation of

UAS Licences and spectrum was

manipulated by the accused persons

in order to benefit M/s Unitech

Group Companies. The cutoff date

of 25.09.2007 was decided by

accused public servants of DoT

primarily to allow consideration

of Unitech group applications for

UAS licences. The Unitech Group

Companies were in business of

realty and even the objects of

companies were not changed to

‘telecom’ and registered as

required before applying. The

companies were ineligible to get

the licences till the grant of UAS

licences. The Unitech Group was

almost last within the applicants

considered for allocation of UAS

licences and as per existing

policy of first-come-first-served,

no licence could be issued in as

many as 10 to 13 circles where

sufficient spectrum was not

4

available. The Unitech companies

got benefit of spectrum in as many

as 10 circles over the other

eligible

applicants.

Accused

Sanjay Chandra, in conspiracy with

accused public servants, was aware

of the whole design of the

allocation of LOIs and on behalf

of the Unitech group companies was

ready with the drafts of Rs. 1658

crores as early as 10^th October,

2007.”

Vinod Goenka (A5) in Crl. Appeal No. 2179 of

2011 [arising out of SLP(Crl)No.5902 of 2011] :

“5.The allegations against accused

Vinod Goenka are that he was one

of the directors of M/s Swan

Telecom (P) Limited in addition to

accused Shahid Usman Balwa w.e.f.

01.10.2007 and acquired maj