CHANDRA SWAMI Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Right to life and liberty are the hallmarks of our Constitution. Constitution of India guarantees the freedom of movement and zealously safeguard and protect the liberty of an Indian citizen. The Apex Court in few of its judicial pronouncements coined the maxim "Bail and not jail be the rule" while dealing with applications of bail. But at the same time, it has been laid down by the Apex Court in umpteen number of case that while granting the concession of bail, it must be kept in mind that such liberty as enshrined in the Constitution should not be unbridled. It is subject to restrictions. Personal liberty can be enjoyed but not at the cost of moral norms and values of the society nor it should be outside the four walls of the law. If such liberty violates public policy and infringes the provisions of law then it has to be curtailed. Therefore, while dealing with the right of personal liberty of an individual and consequential curtailment on account of the restrictions imposed. Courts cannot be carried away or be under awe on account of the status of that individual. howsoever high that individual may be, he is not above law. Keeping this dictum in mind, we have to see whether petitioners have any cause of grievance.

(2.) To appreciate the arguments of the counsel For the parties, let us have quick glance at Few Facts of this case. The petitioners have been charged For an offence oF cheating. The charges were levelled against these petitioners by one Mr. L.B. Pathak. On the basis oF those allegations an FIR was registered way back on 25th September, 1987. On the basis of that FIR a complaint was filed in Court on 5th February. 1988 under Section 120-B and 420 Indian Penal Code . against both the petitioners. Investigation was taken up on the basis oF the said complaint. Present petitioners were arrested on 13th February, 1988. They applied For bail. The then Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (in short 'ACMM') vide his order dated 17th February, 1988 granted bail to both the petitioners. Petitioner No. 1 herein, Mr. Chandraswamy was primarily granted bail on account oF his illness. ACMM took into consideration the report submitted by the joint medical examination oF Jain Medical Centre and by the Doctors oF Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital. Basing his order oF bail on those medical reports submitted by the Doctors and as mentioned in para No. 2 oF his order, the ACMM granted bail to petitioner No. 1. To petitioner No. 2 Shri Kailash Nath Aggarwal bail was granted on account oF his grand nephew's marriage. Keeping these Factors into consideration ACMM enlarged them on bail. The said bail was not on merits. While contesting that application, C.B.I, had pointed out that the offences alleged against the petitioners were very serious in nature. However, the Court without touching the merits of the case and without discussing the objections raised by C.B.I, granted bail keeping in view the medical status of the petitioner No. 1 Mr. Chandraswamy and marriage ceremonies of petitioner No. 2's grand nephew. The bail was granted of course subject to conditions which find mention in that order. One oF the condition is that they will not leave the country except with prior permission of the Court, secondly they will not hamper the investigation in any manner directly or indirectly.

(3.) AS per the version oF prosecution, the investigation went on till about February, 1996. The reason For such a long delay in completing the investigation, according to C.B.I., was primarily due to the fact that the alleged offence was committed in a foreign country. C.B.I, had to collect the documents and record statements of the witnessess in foreign countries. Hence it took time in collecting the documents and recording of statements. Till such time the allegations made in the complaint were substantially corroborated by cogent and reliable evidence, the C.B.I, could not file the report envisaged under Section 173Cr.P.C.Prima facie case had to be made out on the basis of material to be collected, otherwise prosecution could not substantiate the charge in the Court. It was only when prima facie material corroborating each and every allegation of the FIR was collected that thecharge sheet could be filed. It was filed on 12th April, 1996.