Sukh Ram Vs. State Through Central Bureau of Investigation - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
criminal procedure code 1973 - section 439--bail--petitioner charged under section 120b, ipc and under sections 13(1)(d) & 13(2) of prevention of corruption act, 1988--on search of various premises of petitioner--large amount of cash and other assets recovered disproportionate to the known sources of petitioner--state counsel pleaded--diaries yet to be decoded--investigation at a crucial stage--petitioner not co-operating in investigation--held : petitioner has roots in society and thoroughly interrogated. no further interrogation necessary. i do not feel that the petitioner can temper with evidence. admitted to bail conditionally. petition disposed of. - - it is alleged that his sources of income prior to that would have been even lesser and these facts clearly disclosed that the petitioner who had been a public servant for the last about 10 years in his capacity as a minister or member of parliament had amassed assets substantially disproportionate to his known sources of income, for which he had prima facie no explanationn. unless exceptional circumstances are brought to the notice of the court which may defeat proper investigation and a fair trial, the court will not decline to grant bail to the person who is not accused of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. the over-riding considerations in granting bail, as already mentioned above, are the nature and gravity of the circumstances in which the offence was committed, the position and status of the accused with reference to the victim and the witnesses, the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice, of repeating the offence, of jeopardising his own life being faced with grim prospects of possible conviction in the case, of tampering with witnesses, the history of the case as well as of its investigation and other relevant grounds. 2,00,000.00 (rupees two lakhs only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court, subject to the following conditions :1.he shall surrender his passport, if not already surrendered, to the central bureau of investigation within two days;s.k. mahajan, j.(1) after registration of the case fir no.rc- 3a/96/cbi/acu(iv) under section 120-b and section 13(2) read with section 13(l)(d) of the prevention of corruption act, 1988 against the petitioner and two other persons, various premises of the petitioner were searched when large amount of cash and other assets were recovered. the central bureau of investigation also came to know about the petitioner owning various immovable properties. the assets which were recovered and which had come to the knowledge of the central bureau of investigation were substantially disproportionate to his known sources of income for which, according to the cbi, there was no prima facie explanationn. a case fir no.rc-4a/96 was, thereforee, registered against the petitioner under section 13(2) read with section 13(l)(e) of the prevention of corruption act. (2) at the time of registration of the earlier fir being rc-3a/96 and at the time of search, the petitioner was out of the country having allegedly gone to the united kingdom for his medical treatment. on his return from abroad on 16th september, 1996, he was arrested at the indira gandhi international airport, new delhi itself in case fir no.rc-3a/96. he was formally arrested in case fir no.rc-4a/96 on 18th september, 1996. having been released on bail in rc-sa/96, the petitioner had applied for bail in rc-4a/96, however, this application was dismissed by the special judge on 1st october, 1996. the present petition has, thereforee, been filed by the petitioner for being released on bail in case fir no.rc-4a/96. a few facts which are relevant for purposes of deciding this petition are : (3) that on search of the various premises of the petitioner, former minister of state in the union cabinet and presently a member of parliament, the following movable and immovable assets were known to be possessed by him :- 'moveable assets 1. cash amount in indian currency to the tune of rs.3,61,80,364.00 . 2. jewellery items amounting to rs.l0,29,404.00 . 3. bank accounts totalling 19, showing cash balance amount of rs.4,92,739.00 . 4. household articles amounting to rs.l0,30,000.00 . 5. imported electronic gadgets, namely, electronic star typewriter, fax machines (nafex), video camera (panasonic), colour t.v. (sony), v.c.r. (sony), microwave oven, video cassettes (80 nos.) two double beds, luxury sofas, drill machine, vaccum cleaner hitachi, cut classes, silver wares, juicer mixer philips, table, maxi, own, fully automatic washing machine. immoveable assets 6. a palatial house constructed by shri sukh ram at samkithar street, mandi, himachal pradesh valuing approximately rs.20 lakhs. 7. a multi storied hotel named 'mayfair', sheri bazar, mandi (himachal pradesh) valuing approximately rs.50 lakhs. 8. a palatial three storied building at d-42, kaushambhi, ghaziabad, constructed by shri sukh ram in his own name, during 1993-96 worth rs.l,00,00,000.00 (approximately). 9. an apple garden measuring an area of 62 bighas at village raddi (m.p.) and a farm house at the location.'(4) the known sources of income of the petitioner and his wife for the period from 1992 were verified and the same were found not to be more than rs.30.78 lacs. it is alleged that his sources of income prior to that would have been even lesser and these facts clearly disclosed that the petitioner who had been a public servant for the last about 10 years in his capacity as a minister or member of parliament had amassed assets substantially disproportionate to his known sources of income, for which he had prima facie no explanationn. though, it was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner prior to his becoming a minister for state in the union cabinet on 2nd july, 1992 was not a public servant and, thereforee, he could not be charged for an offence of having possessed assets disproportionate to his known sources of income during the last ten years, however, from the record i find that from 25th september, 1985 onward till 16th may, 1996 except for a period of about two and a half years, the petitioner had been a minister in the union cabinet. the details of his being a member of the union council of ministers are given as under :- 1.minister of state in the department of defense production and supply in the ministry of defense 25.9.85 to 22.10.86 2. minister of state (planning) 04-05-87 to 14.02.88 minister of state in the ministry of programme implementation 22.10.86 to 14.02.88 3. minister of state (independent charge) of the ministry of food and civil supplies 14.02.88 to 02.12.89 4. minister of state (independent charge) of the ministry of planning and programme implementation and minister of state in the ministry of non-conventional energy sources 02.07.92 to 18.01.93 5. minister of state (independent charge) of the ministry of communications 18.01.93 to 16.05.96 (5) the contention of mr. dinesh mathur, senior advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, is that nothing more remains to be investigated by the central bureau of investigation for which the petitioner may be required in custody and he should, thereforee, be admitted to bail. it is further contended that the central bureau of investigation had not in any of the remand applications stated that there was any apprehension of the petitioner fleeing from justice or tampering with evidence. he has referred to the judgments reported as gurcharan singh vs . state : (1978)illj17sc ; babu singhvs. state of u.p. : 1978crilj651 ; joginder singh vs . state of u.p. : 1994crilj1981 ; and abdul mohasin albahouth v. state 1985 (2) cri 526 in support of his contention that looking into the nature and gravity of offence and looking to other factors, the petitioner was entitled to be admitted to bail. (6) mr.k.n.bhatt, additional solicitor general of india, has, however, argued that the investigation is at the crucial stage and the diaries of the petitioner have yet to be decoded and the petitioner was not cooperating in investigation. it was, thereforee, contended by him that on being released, the petitioner may contact the persons whose names are yet to be decoded and thus tamper with evidence. it is, thereforee, his submission that it was too early for the petitioner to make an application for bail and according to him there was no case made out by the petitioner for being admitted to bail. (7) though it was initially,argued by mr.mathur that the petitioner was not a public servant, he later on conceded that for purposes of deciding this application, he will not press this point and he, thereforee, argued the petition on the assumption that the petitioner was a public servant for the entire period of ten years for which the fir had been lodged. (8) at the stage of considering the application of the petitioner for the grant of bail, the court is not required to go into the detailed examination of evidence and pre-judge the case and for that exhaustive exploitation of the merits of the case are not required in the order. the court before granting bail in cases involving non-bailable offences, is to take into consideration matters such as the nature and seriousness of the offence, the character of evidence, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, a reasonable possibility of the presence of the accused not being secured at trial, reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with, the larger interest of the public or the state and similar other considerations. bail should normally not be withheld as a punishment if, after taking into consideration other factors, the accused is entitled to the grant of bail. bail and not jail is the normal rule. the two paramount considerations, namely, likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and his tampering with prosecution evidence relate to ensuring fair trial of a case in the course of justice. due and proper weight should be bestowed on these two factors apart from others. there cannot be a set formula in the matter of granting bail. the facts and circumstances of each case will govern the exercise of judicial discretion in granting or cancelling the bail. (9) the main contention of the central bureau of investigation is that the diaries, which have been seized during search of the premises of the petitioner, have yet to be decoded. it is submitted that though the investigating agency has been able to decode some of the names from the diary, however, as other names have yet to be decoded, the possibility of the petitioner tampering with evidence cannot be ruled out. in case, he was admitted to bail he may contact the persons whose names are yet to be decoded. the question is whether bail can be refused to a person merely on the ground that some of the pages of the diaries have yet to be decoded and how much time it will take to decode the diaries is not known even to the investigating agency. can bail be refused on the ground that there is still uncertainty about the persons who may be involved along with the petitioner on account of the diaries having not been decoded. the first remand application in this case was made by the investigating agency on 18th september, 1996 and the second remand application was made on 23rd september, 1996. on 23rd september, 1996 on the said remand application, the court had remanded the petitioner to police custody up to 28th september, 1996. in none of the two remand applications any grievance was made about the petitioner fleeing from justice or tampering with evidence. the third remand application was filed on 28th september, 1996. the court, however, refused to give police remand of the petitioner and instead remanded him to judicial custody till 1st october, 1996. it will be useful to quote the order of the special judge rejecting the request of the central bureau of investigation to remand the petitioner to police custody :- 'in my opinion investigating agency have been granted sufficient time to interrogate the accused in respect of the entries in the alleged diaries and if the accused has not opened his mouth in respect of the entries in the diaries during the period of last about ten days, he will not say anything about it, if the remand is given. thereforee, i do not find any justification for extension of the police custody remand. moreover, it may not be out of place to say that even if the judicial custody remand of the accused is granted or he is released on bail. investigating agency can be permitted to interrogate him in this regard. thus, request for police custody remand is declined.'(10) on the date when the trial court had refused to remand the petitioner to police custody, an application for bail was also made by the petitioner which was decided by the special judge by his order dated 1st october, 1996. the special judge while rejecting the application of the petitioner for the grant of bail, held that after having carefully considered the arguments of the parties, he was of the opinion that the charges were of serious nature and the diary allegedly containing the entries in the hand of the petitioner had yet to be decoded and verified by the investigating agency and it was, thereforee, not proper to release the petitioner on bail considering his political influence and if he was released on bail at that stage he was likely to tamper with evidence and hamper the investigation. (11) as held by the supreme court in gurcharan singh v. state (supra), in non-bailable cases other than ones where the person has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, the court will exercise its discretion in favor of granting bail subject to sub-section 3 of section 437 of the code, if it deems necessary to deal under it. unless exceptional circumstances are brought to the notice of the court which may defeat proper investigation and a fair trial, the court will not decline to grant bail to the person who is not accused of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. the over-riding considerations in granting bail, as already mentioned above, are the nature and gravity of the circumstances in which the offence was committed, the position and status of the accused with reference to the victim and the witnesses, the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice, of repeating the offence, of jeopardising his own life being faced with grim prospects of possible conviction in the case, of tampering with witnesses, the history of the case as well as of its investigation and other relevant grounds. a person who has committed a criminal misconduct under section 13 of the prevention of corruption act, is liable to be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend up to seven years. (12) petitioner has been a former minister in .the union cabinet. he has roots in the society. he and his family members are residing in delhi and himachal pradesh. he is a known case of diabetes mellitus and coronary artery disease for which he underwent coronary artery bypass surgery in august, 1995. i, thereforee, do not see any reason as to why the petitioner should flee from justice. he has already been thoroughly interrogated. even the special judge, while dealing with the application of central bureau of investigation for police remand, had observed that investigating agency had been given sufficient time to interrogate the petitioner and he had not opened his mouth relating to the entries in the diary, there was no justification for extension of remand and if he is released on bail, investigating agency can still be permitted to interrogate him. except for alleged decoding of diaries, no further interrogation of the petitioner appears to be necessary and in case he is released on bail, i do not feel that the petitioner can tamper with evidence. (13) for the foregoing reasons and without in any manner commenting upon the merits of the case, i direct the petitioner to be admitted to bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of rs.2,00,000.00 (rupees two lakhs only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court, subject to the following conditions :- 1.he shall surrender his passport, if not already surrendered, to the central bureau of investigation within two days; 2. he shall not go abroad without prior permission of the court; 3. he shall not operate any of the bank lockers without permission of the court; and 4. he shall join investigation as and when required by the investigating agency. with these observations, the petition stands disposed of.