LALIT K. BHANOT Vs. CBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition the Petitioner seeks bail in R.C.No. DAI-2010-8-0044 under Section 420/467/468/471 read with Section 120-B IPC and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (in short P.C. Act) registered by the CBI.

(2.) The primary contention of the Petitioner in the present case is that the Petitioner was arrested in the above mentioned FIR for offences under Section 420 read with 120-B IPC and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act. Thus, the time frame within which the Respondent was mandated to file the charge sheet was 60 days and no remand of the Petitioner to judicial custody could have been granted beyond the period of 60 days. It is contended that the Petitioner had applied for bail on the ground of non-filing of the chargesheet within 60 days on 29 th April, 2011 i.e. before the filing of the chargesheet and he is, thus, entitled to the statutory bail under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. Relying on State of Maharashtra Vs. Bharati Chandmal Varma @ Ayesha Khan, 2002 2 SCC 121 it is contended that by adding Section 467 IPC to the case, the period of custody can not be extended from 60 days to 90 days, as the time period for filing the charge-sheet would be the one which is applicable to the facts and penal provisions invoked at the time when the person is initially arrested. It is further contended that even as per the allegations set out no offence under Section 467 IPC is made out and, thus, the Petitioner is entitled to the statutory bail. Reliance in this regard is placed on Mohammed Ibrahim and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Anr., 2009 8 SCC 751; A.M. Chakraborty Vs. Ved Vrat and Ors., 1986 30 DLT 165; Daniel Hailey Walcott and Anr. Vs. State, 1968 AIR(Mad) 349. Reliance is also placed on Devendra and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Anr., 2009 7 SCC 495 to contend that making of a false document is a sine-qua-non of the offence of forgery. In the present case no forged document has been prepared by the Petitioner and, thus, no case under Section 467 IPC is made out.

(3.) Learned counsel on behalf of the CBI contends that FIR is not an encyclopedia of the entire prosecution case as laid down in Superintendent of Police, CBI and Ors. Vs. Tapan Kumar Singh, 2003 6 SCC 175. He further states that the Hon?ble Supreme Court in Mustaq Ahmed Mohammed Isak and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2009 7 SCC 480 held that once offences are added to the case which entail an extended period of remand pending investigation, the prosecution would be entitled to the same. Admittedly, the charge sheet was filed within 90 days of the remand period. In the present case Section 467 IPC was added at the time of second remand when the learned Senior PP for CBI brought to the notice of the learned trial court that during investigation three more Sections i.e. 467, 468 and 471 IPC have been added. The learned Court directed that Sections be mentioned in the remand papers of the accused persons and the case diary be returned. Thus the investigating agency was entitled to file the charge sheet within the period of 90 days from the first remand. According to the learned counsel the ingredients of Section 467 IPC are clearly made out. However, this is an issue which will be considered by the learned trial court at the time of framing of charge. This Court while deciding a bail application under Section 439 IPC read with Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. will not pre-judge whether Section of 467 IPC is attracted to the facts of the case. He, however, states that Section 467 IPC does not contemplate forgery of a valuable security only. Even where a person purports to give authority to any person to receive or deliver any money or movable or immovable property, the same amounts to forgery. The charge-sheet clearly shows that the Petitioner in connivance with other officials deliberately bye-passed the Technical F.A. Although the note was marked to ADG (Technical) for putting on the website, the note was never routed through ADG (Technical) but was instead routed by the P.A. of the Petitioner to a junior functionary in Technology F.A. for publication on Organizing Committee Website on 23 rd March, 2009. Thereafter, the coaccused Surjit Lal ante-dated this note by writing series of false notings with a view to seek financial approvals by placing an advertisement of EOI in the newspaper for which Communications F.A. was the competent person.