STATE Vs. B P ACHARYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed by Deputy Superintendent of Police, SPE, CBI, Hyderabad, under Section 439(2) read with 482 Cr.P.C. to call for the records relating to the docket order, dated 16.3.2012 passed in RC.18 (A)/2011-C.C06 of 2012 on the file of the learned Special Judge for CBI Cases at Hyderabad and quash the same.

(2.) THE respondent (A1) is the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B read with 420, 409, 420 and 477-A IPC and 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) and (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. THE docket order, dated 16.3.2012 reads that the case was taken on file on 9.3.2012, that no sanction was obtained for A1 and A11, that on 9.3.2012, the learned Deputy Legal Advisor submitted that filing of charge-sheet without sanction orders is not proper, that the matter is posted to today i.e., on 16.3.2012 for further hearing and also for getting sanction orders from the Government and that the sanction orders passed against A1 and A11 are available. THE charge- sheet was filed against A1 to A6 and A9 to A14. It was mentioned in the charge-sheet that the investigation against A7 and A8 i.e., N. Sunil Reddy and G. Vijaya Raghav is still pending and supplementary charge- sheet will be filed against them. A1, A11 and A12 are public servants. A12 is a retired public servant. No sanction is required for A12. So far, no sanction order of A1 and A11 obtained and filed in the Court. As per Section 19, of P.C. Act, 1988, no Court should take cognizance of an Offence punishable under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 of P.C. Act, 1988 alleged to have been committed by a public servant. As such no cognizance of the offences alleged to have been committed by A1 and A11 can be taken. THE charge-sheet is taken on file for the offences under Sections 120-B read with 420, 409 and 477-A IPC against A2 to A8, A9 and A14, for the offences under Sections 120-B read with 420 and 409 IPC against A1, for the offences under Sections 120-B IPC and 13(2) read with 13(l)(d) and 15 of P.C. Act, 1988 against A12 and for the offences under Sections 120-B read with 420, 109 and 409 IPC against A13. Since the offences alleged against A1 are not being taken cognizance for want of sanction under Section 19 of P.C. Act, 1988, he(A1) shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- with two sureties for like sum each to the satisfaction of this Court. A1 should not leave Hyderabad without the permission of this Court. A1 should surrender his pass port if any otherwise he should submit the same through an affidavit that he has no passport.

(3.) NO doubt, granting of bail is discretionary order and that discretion has to be exercised judiciously and it should not be arbitrary and capricious and is governed by well established principles. If the discretion is exercised in an arbitrary or unjudicial manner, remedy by way of resort to higher Courts is always open to the aggrieved party. The order must contain though not elaborate but brief reasons for grant of bail. Any order without any reasons can be said to be a perverse order. As seen from the order, no reason was assigned for granting bail to the respondent herein (A1). Simply because, cognizance was not taken for want of sanction by the competent authority, that does not mean the accused is entitled for bail automatically.