B RAMACHANDHIRAN Vs. CBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant Shri B. Ramachandhiran seeks the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.PC, 1973 and under Section 482 of the Cr.PC, 1973 in relation to the case registered vide RC No.09(A)/2017/CBI/AC-III dated 16.09.2017 in the case titled CBI Vs. Col. Ajay Kumar Singh & Ors. under Sections 7, 8 & 12 of the PC Act, 1988 r/w Section 120B Indian Penal Code, 1860 submitting to the effect that the applicant is a law abiding citizen and has joined the investigation and was present during the search conducted by the officials of the CBI and has denied the allegations before the CBI as also all the allegations levelled in the RC. He further submits that he is the Chairman of the Sri Venkateshwara Medical College Hospital and Research Centre, Pondicherry and has roots in the society and his arrest would cause humiliation and in terms of the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar & Anr, (2014) 8 SCC 273 no arrest ought to be made only because the offences are non bailable and cognizable and lawful for the public officer to do so which is one thing as the justification for the exercise of the same is quite different. The applicant has submitted that he is not required for any custodial interrogation and that all other accused persons had already been granted bail by the Court of Special Judge, CBI during the investigation though they had remained in custody for some period. Inter alia the applicant had submitted that he is a victim of a large conspiracy and is a prominent figure in the State of Tamil Nadu and is willing to join the investigation and his mobile has also already been seized by the Investigating Agency and apart from the same, he has been suffering from severe health issues such as diabetes, hyper-tension and is constantly on medication and that in terms of the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40 where a person is alleged to have committed an offence punishable only to the extent of seven years, he or she ought ordinarily to be enlarged on bail. The applicant has also submitted that there is no chance of his absconding from the course of justice and there is no scope for his tampering with the evidence or witnesses in any manner. Inter alia the applicant has submitted that the allegations levelled against the applicant relate to his having given one installment of an alleged illegal gratification demanded by the co-accused persons i.e. public servants in lieu of providing services as mentioned in the RC for the sake of Sri Venkateshwaraa Medical College Hospital and Research Centre, Pondicherry and that the gravity of those cases cannot be equated with that of the applicant, inasmuch as the applicant had nothing to do with the other applicants arrested.

(2.) The allegations levelled against the applicant as submitted by the applicant himself through his application are to the effect that the petitioner allegedly arranged Rs.10 lakhs for the public servants i.e. Col. Ajay Kumar Singh and Santosh Kumar as alleged illegal gratification through hawala channels at Delhi and the said amount was received by the co-accused Sushil Kumar on behalf of Col. Ajay Kumar Singh (AK Singh) and Santosh Kumar and there was a conversation between Col. AK Singh and Santosh Kumar and the applicant/petitioner herein qua which the applicant stated that he had never offered any bribe to these persons and the amount recovered from his premises i.e. Rs.1.64 crores had been duly accounted for and was a collection of fees of the medical college about which the CBI had been apprised. The applicant had thus submitted that there is no allegation sufficient to bring him within the ambit of culpability under Sections 7, 8 & 12 of the PC Act, 1988. It has further been submitted on behalf of the applicant that he being the Chairman of the Sri Venkateshwara Medical College Hospital and Research Centre, Pondicherry, had been falsely implicated in the instant case.

(3.) Notice of the application was issued to the CBI and the CBI vehemently opposed the prayer and filed a reply under signatures of Mr. Suresh Kumar, DSP, CBI, AC-III, New Delhi to the effect that the application for anticipatory bail be rejected.