SUKESH CHANDRASHEKAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner seeks regular bail in case FIR No.56/2017 registered under Sections 170 and 120B IPC read with Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short 'PC Act') wherein later on Sections 467/468/471/474/201 IPC were added later on.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that at best the case of the prosecution is that the petitioner acted in conspiracy with the main accused TTV Dinakaran to obtain a favourable order from the Election Commission of India (in short ECI) with respect to 2 leaves election symbol. It is contended that the main accused TTV Dinakaran has already been released on bail on 1st June, 2017 by the learned Sessions Court, however the petitioner is in custody and be granted bail on parity. The offences under Section 8 of the PC Act would at best be punishable for a sentence of imprisonment for a period of five years and the petitioner being in custody for nearly 9 months, he be released on bail. The petitioner has been made scapegoat. Though search was conducted on the 16th April, 2014 at the room stated to be in occupations of the petitioner at Hotel Hyatt Regency, R.K. Puram and Rs. 1.35 crores recovered besides the Mercedes Benz Car, it is the case of the prosecution itself that on 17th April, 2014 the room was again opened and a business card was recovered noting that the petitioner was a Rajya Sabha member. The said business card has been planted. Sections 467/468/471/474/201 IPC were added only on the basis of these planted recoveries. In any case the petitioner is no more required for investigation and thus be released on bail.

(3.) Opposing the bail application learned APP for the State besides referring to the allegations against the petitioner states that after the arrest the petitioner has been involved in three other FIRs, in two cases he was found impersonating as a Judge of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and as PS to the Minister of Law and Justice and in the third case he while being taken to be produced in other Courts it was found that he took all the Police Escort officers with him by flight though neither the petitioner nor they were entitled to go by air.