A KRISHNA REDDY Vs. CBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition the Petitioner seeks bail in RC No. DAI/2010/A/0044 under Section 120B read with Section 420 IPC and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short PC Act).

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Petitioner has been in custody since 20th August, 2011. The charge-sheet has already been filed. Co-accused who have major role have already been granted bail. However, the LEARNED Trial Court dismissed the bail application of the Petitioner. Even if the allegations as set out in the FIR are taken on their face value, the only allegation against the Petitioner is that he raised bogus wage bills amounting to Rs.3,11,60,000/-. On the face of it the said allegation is incorrect as everybody knew that because of paucity of time work had to be done at war footing and the Petitioner managed to collect the labourers from various States and got the work done in a record time so that the event was a success. The bail application of the Petitioner has been dismissed by the LEARNED Special Judge for the reason that the Petitioner indulged in influencing the witness. The Petitioner denies having influenced the prosecution witness. Even assuming the facts against the Petitioner, the said prosecution witness Harish Kumar Walia has not alleged anything against the Petitioner, rather he has stated that 300-400 persons were arranged for AKR constructions from Hyderabad and the said prosecution witness even as per his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is not a witness to the payments made. As regards the allegations of abscondence leveled by the CBI, it is stated that mere abscondence is not enough to deny the bail. Further, the Petitioner was only availing the remedies available to him and after exhausting remedies available to him upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court, he surrendered before the LEARNED Special Judge. Further, even if an accused is not available and non-bailable warrants are issued to arrest him, the same cannot be a ground to deny him bail for all times to come. Reliance is placed on Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40; R. Vasudevan Vs. CBI 166 (2010) DLT 583; Subhash @ Nati Vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Bail Application No. 431/2010 decided 9 th April, 2010 and Ruchi Talreja Vs. State Bail Application No. 1830/2011 decided on 13 th March, 2012. The trial is likely to take some time and thus bail be granted to the Petitioner.

(3.) UNDOUBTEDLY, the main accuseds have already been granted bail. However, in the case of main accuseds there were no allegation of either absconsion or tampering with the evidence. As regards absconsion, it may be noted that the Petitioner surrendered after availing his remedies upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in the mean time he was declared a proclaimed offender and his properties were attached. There can be no dispute that every person has a right to access to justice. Thus, the Petitioner not surrendering to custody while he was seeking legal remedies cannot be treated adverse to him. However, the primary reason for the rejection of Petitioner's bail by the Learned Trial Court was the fact that the Petitioner was found tampering with the evidence and influencing the witness. This fact came to light at the time of hearing of the anticipatory bail application of the Petitioner before the Learned Special Judge when one prosecution witness was found assisting the counsel for the Petitioner to address arguments. On pointing out by the Investigating Officer, the witness PW-10 Harish Kumar Walia stated that he was looking after the interest of the Petitioner. At this stage it would be relevant to note the observations of the Learned Special Judge in the order dated 15th June, 2011 passed at the time of hearing of the bail application -