VINOD BHANDARI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is repeat bail application by the applicant/accused, who has been arrested for offences committed under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC read with Sections 3(d), 1, 2/4 of the Madhya Pradesh Manyata Prapt Pariksha Adhiniyam, 1937 and under Sections 65 and 66 of the I.T. Act by the Police of STF, Bhopal in Crime No. 12/2013 and challan has been filed. The applicant was arrested on 30th January, 2014 and since then he is in jail. The first bail application was moved before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal by the applicant, which was rejected on 5-2-2014. He moved an application before this Court being M.Cr.C. No. 2189/2014 before the filing of challan, which application was withdrawn by him with liberty to file fresh bail application after filing of the challan before the Court below, vide order dated 19-3-2014. After making an application for grant of bail before the Court below since the said application was rejected vide order dated 9-5-2014, this application has been filed for grant of regular bail. It is vehemently contended by learned Senior Counsel for the applicant that since investigation as far as the applicant is concerned, is complete, there is no requirement of keeping the applicant in custody any longer and these aspects were not considered by the Court below while rejecting the bail application. Hence, the applicant is entitled to be released on regular bail. It is further contended that in similar circumstances, some other accused involved in the very same crime, have been granted bail by this Court. It is contended that the applicant is entitled to grant of bail as there is no legal evidence available against him as per the challan filed by the prosecution. The applicant is willing to furnish the surety to the satisfaction of the Court and is also ready to surrender his Passport to avoid any apprehension of absconding or fleeing from the ends of justice. He is also ready to attend the police station everyday till the trial is completed. The undertaking is further given that the applicant is willing to abide by all terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Court, if he is admitted to privilege of bail.

(2.) Learned Additional Advocate General, on the strength of material accompanying the challan and on the instructions so received, contended that the investigation is still going on inasmuch as the statements of certain persons, who have been named as accused and/or being named as prosecution witnesses, are to be recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A huge amount was recovered from an employee of the applicant, who is co-accused in the same crime, on his making a statement. Fact further remains that the challan has been filed keeping in view the outer limit of filing of the challan in case of an accused in custody, but still investigation of scam is going on in which there is likelihood of filing of further challan indicating the evidence available against the applicant. The present applicant is an influential person and in case he is enlarged on bail, there is every likelihood that the investigation would be hampered.

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel has invited our attention to the material available against the applicant in so far as the present state of challan is concerned. It is contended that looking to the said material, it is clear that there is no legal evidence against the applicant. It is contended that the evidence, as have been indicated in challan papers against the present applicant, do not make out a case of any such offence that would be proved against him. It is contended that the statement of co-accused even made under Section 27 of the Evidence Act cannot be used against the applicant. There is no iota of legal evidence with respect to the excel sheet, which has been prepared after receiving the data from the hard disc of computer seized from other co-accused. Merely, mentioning of first name without giving any description, it cannot be said that the applicant was the person whose name was referred in the said excel sheet. There is no proof of identity and, therefore, such an evidence cannot be read against the applicant at this stage. It is contended that the trial is to be conducted by a Magistrate, which will take a long time and looking to such scanty evidence available against the applicant, if he is not released on bail, in fact, he would undergo the entire length of sentence, which could be imposed after the trial, even without finding him guilty of such offence. It is, thus, contended that in catena of cases, in such circumstances the Apex Court has held that the accused is entitled to grant of bail. Primarily, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has placed their reliance on the case of Pulukuri Kottaya and others v. Emperor, 1947 0 AIR(PC) 67, and contended that in fact the entire evidence as well as the statement of co-accused is not admissible in view of the well-settled law. It is contended that considering these aspects, the law is further explained in the case of Prabhoo v. State of U.P., 1963 AIR(SC) 1113 : and thus, the said evidence is not to be read at all. It is contended that circumstantial evidence, the nature of offence and all other aspects have been looked into by the Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2012 1 SCC 40 : and it has been held that the regular bail is not to be refused in such circumstances. Further placing reliance in the case of Dipak Subhashchandra Mehta v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2012 4 SCC 134 : it is contended that in such circumstances the applicant would be entitled to grant of regular bail.