DR JAYANTI DHARMA TEJA Vs. STATE,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused petitioner has moved this application under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for being released on bail during the pendency of the trial. The petitioner has been accused of offences inter alia under Sections 409 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code which are punishable with imprisonment for life, together with offences under Sections 420, 477A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code for the alleged embezzlement of a sum of about two crores rupees in foreign exchange out of the funds belonging to a corporate body named Jayanti Shipping Company Limited of which the petitioner had been a permanent Chairman. It appears that in early 1966, the Government of India on receipt of complaints directed an inquiry into the affairs of the said company and the petitioner who was in France paid a visit to India on 6th of May, 1966 but left the country four days thereafter. (The counsel for the petitioner has stated at the bar that the petitioner paid a short visit to this country in May June, 1966). But ultimately he found himself in the United States of America. The management of the aforesaid shipping company was, on 10th June, 1966, taken over by a Board of control appointed by the Government pursuant to an Ordinance which was replaced by an Act of Parliament No. 24 of 1966. On 30th of July, 1966, the Secretary of the Shipping Corporation lodged a complaint as a result of which the Delhi Special Police Establishment (Central Bureau of Investigation) registered a case against the petitioner and his wife under the aforesaid provisions of law on 4th of August, 1966 which was investigated by a visit to foreign countries as well. The whereabouts of the petitioner were not found and so the passport of the petitioner issued by this country was cancelled by circular issued on 18th October, 1966. Thereafter information was received in February, 1967 that the petitioner and his wife were in United States of America where they had applied for acquiring the status of permanent residents. However, at the instance of the Indian Consul General, the American Authorities commenced proceedings for deportation of the petitioner and his wife from that country and the Consul General of India took charge of their passports and cancelled and impounded them in February, 1967. The Delhi Special Police Establishment on 28th of February, 1967 instituted proceedings in the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate. New Delhi to obtain warrants for the arrest and extradition of the petitioner and his wife from United States to this country which were issued by the learned Magistrate on 27th of April, 1967. In pursuance of the said warrants, extradition proceedings were commenced against the petitioner and his wife in the United States where they were arrested and produced before the U.S. Commissioner and released on bail in the amount of 25,000 dollars which was later reduced to 10,000 dollars each. During the pendency of the extradition, proceedings the petitioner and his wife jumped bail and did not appear before the court and eventually the bail bonds were forfeited and the extradition proceedings concluded and the extradition of the petitioner and his wife was ordered to be effected. It appears that in September, 1967 the petitioner absconded to Costa Rica on safe conduct pass obtained through mutual friends and settled down there. Extradition proceedings against him instituted in that State failed. He stated to that State that he had renounced Indian citizenship with effect from 26th of April, 1970 and applied for the grant of permanent residence and citizenship of Costa Rica. His wife and children are still living there while the petitioner on obtaining a diplomatic passport began his travels in June, 1970.

(2.) ON 24th of July, 1970 the petitioner was arrested at Heathrwo Airport in London when he was found travelling on Costa Rica passport issued in the name of Jayanti Dharma Konduru instead of Jayanti Dharma Teja. Extradition proceedings were consequently commenced against him in competent court in London which proved successful up to the Queens Bench Division vide Ex parte Teja, (1971) 2 Weekly Law Reports 816 and the petitioner was ultimately extradited to India. It is significant to notice that the application for bail during the pendency of the extradition proceedings in United Kingdom was refused.

(3.) THE petitioner has been brought to Delhi in April, 1971 and has been lodged in the Central Jail at Tihar as an under trial prisoner and is being given treatment permissible to Class 'A' prisoners. The petitioner applied for bail to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. New Delhi who is seized of the committal proceedings, but the learned Magistrate refused the same. The petitioner then applied to the Sessions Judge, Delhi for grant of bail which has also been refused by his order, dated the 25th of May, 1971. The learned Sessions Judge has observed that environment in which the petitioner is being detained in jail seems to be quite reasonable and that the petitioner is being kept under constant check up and observation and he has been examined by specialist and his health appears to be satisfactory. The learned Judge concluded that the state of health of the petitioner did not warrant his release on bail and the learned Judge accepted the contention of the counsel for the prosecution that if the petitioner were admitted to bail he would escape and the learned Judge was of the view that this ground out -weighed all other considerations in refusing bail.