Y G MALI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition by an advocate from Dhule seeking the cancellation of bail granted to the third respondent Harshad Mehta under two different orders : the first is the Order passed on the 27th August, 1992 by the learned Special Judge (justice Variava) in Remand Application No. 24 of 1992 in R. C. Case No. 8 of 1992 and the other is the bail granted on the 9th September 1992 by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in R. A. No. 363 of 1992 which relates to the violation of the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (for short, "f. E. R. A. " ). The bail granted by the learned Magistrate in the F. E. R. A. case has been confirmed by this Court while dismissing Criminal Application No. 2595 of 1992 on September 21, 1992. The first respondent is the Union of India, through the Central Bureau of Investigation, which is the investigating agency, in connection with the offences triable under the Special Court (Trial of Offences relating to transactions in securities) Act, 1992 (for short, "the Special Court Act" ). The second respondent is the State of Maharashtra, which is a formal party. The third respondent is Harshad Mehta, who is the concerned accused and the fourth respondent is the Directorate of Enforcement, which is the concerned investigating agency, under the F. E. R. A. in respect of the offences alleged to have been committed by the third respondent.

(2.) THE petitioner alleges in particular the breach of Condition No. 3 imposed by the learned Special Judge in his Order dated 27th August, 1992. Condition No. 3 reads as under:

(3.) AS far as the violation of the conditions imposed by the learned Special Judge is concerned, the petitioner contends that the third respondent has attempted to influence the prosecution witnesses and he has not obtained the permission of the C. B. I. before giving the Press interview at Bombay, the details of which have been published in the two newspapers, copies of which are annexed to the petition. Grievance made is in respect of certain portion appearing at Page No. 16 which is the xerox copy of the edition of "newsday" of Wednesday 16th June, 1993. Similarly, grievance is made of what appears at Page No. 18, being Page 21 of the edition of "mid-Day" of Thursday, the 17th June, 1993. The two newspapers are supposed to carry the details of the Press Conference held by the third respondent in the afternoon of Wedesday, the 16th June, 1993. The petitioners grievance is that the first respondent C. B. I. is under the control of the Prime Minister and hence, what appears at page 18 referring to the C. B. I. is likely to hamper the investigation. The exact words, of which grievance has been made, appear at Page 18 are as under :