V K SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We heard Shri Shanti Bhushan, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Shri R. N. Trivedi, Additional Solicitor General and also all the other counsel who represented different States. Here is a very peculiar situation in which the petitioner, as sequel to the business transactions indulged in by him is now an accused for offences under Sec. 406,409 and 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code not in one case and not even a dozen of cases but in a large number of cases pending in different States (it is pointed out cases are pending in nine States). He has no grievance that when he applied for bail the order has not been granted in his favour in any particular case. None of the courts in any of the cases found it necessary to refuse bail to him. But in spite of getting such bail orders granted in his favour he remains in jail for the last sixteen months without being released out. The reason for that is - the jail authorities find it difficult to release him since production warrants reached them from other courts as for the petitioner. Naturally the jail authorities will, have to keep him in detention for producing him before the court in compliance with such production warrants. The unfortunate net result is that the petitioner, in spite of obtaining orders of bail in his favour, continues to languish in jail. He contends that his fundamental right ensured under Art. 21 of the Constitution is very violently violated due to the peculiar situation which is developed.

(2.) Petition has filed this Writ Petition praying for the following reliefs: "a) Grant a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India directing the Respondents to transfer all the F. I. R. registered against the Petitioner by virtue of his being the Managing Director and/or Director of the JVG Group of Companies listed in prayer clause (d) and the cases in respect thereof pending before the different Courts of the country to the Court of MM, Patiala House, New Delhi and then consolidate them for the purpose of investigation, enquiry and trial. b) Grant a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India directing the Respondents that all the other cases in which the petitioner is arrayed as an accused shall be investigated, inquired into and tried along with the cases listed in Annexure P-20. c) Grant a writ of Manduamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India directing the CBI to take over the investigation in respect of all the cases in which the petitioner and/or the JVG Group of Companies are arrayed as accused registered or to be registered in different states all over India. "

(3.) It is not possible for us to order that all his cases pending in different States should be consolidated into one and brought before one court. That would impose unwarranted and unnecessary hardships on the witnesses and investigating agency spread over to those different States. Nor are we inclined to order the Central Bureau of Investigation to take up the investigation in respect of all cases in which the petitioner and or the JVG group of companies are arrayed as accused.