SURAJ MANDAL Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have given in short the facts relevant for deciding this petition in my judgment delivered today while deciding the petitions of Mr.P.V.Narasimha Rao and Capt.Satish Sharma for the grant of anticipatory bail, being Crl.M.(M).2733/96 and Crl.M.(M).2742/96 and I am not repeating the same in this order.

(2.) Petitioners have been accused of their having committed an offence punishable under Section 120-B read with Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 7, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Petitioners are alleged to have accepted illegal gratification amounting to about rupees three crores in July, 1993 in consideration of their voting against the motion of confidence tabled by Mr.Ajay Mukhopadhayaya a CPI(M) Member of Parliament against the Government then headed by Mr.P.V. Narasimha Rao. FIR in this case was registered in 1996 after a direction had been given by a Division Bench of this Court in a public interest litigation filed by one Mr.Ravinder Kumar. Petitioners were arrested on 6th September, 1996 and are in custody since then. Charge sheet in the case was filed on 30th October, 1996. Bail application of the petitioners were dismissed by the Special Judge on 8th November, 1996 and this is how the present petitions came to be filed in this Court by the petitioners for their being released on bail.

(3.) The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the case. It is contended that the registration of FIR was highly belated and was politically motivated. In any case, according to the petitioners, though the petitioners were arrested on 6th September, 1996, the Central Bureau of Investigation, with a view to avoid the petitioners being released under Section 167(2) of the Code, has filed an incomplete charge sheet within the period of 60 days on 30th October, 1996; that even as per the charge sheet, the investigation was still continuing to ascertain the facts regarding the role of others who had not been sent for trial and whose names were mentioned in column No.2 of the charge sheet, and also all other unknown persons, and further report, according to the Central Bureau of Investigation, would be submitted after completion of further investigation.