DEEPAK GUPTA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After being unsuccessful on the last three occasions before this Court and once before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and being in judicial custody since 05.09.2013, the petitioner Deepak Gupta has once again knocked at the portals of this Court seeking for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with Balasore Vigilance P.S. Case No. 30 of 2013 which corresponds to T.R. Case No. 01 of 2014 pending in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge

(2.) As per the first charge sheet dated 31.12.2013, the role of the petitioner is mentioned as follows:

(3.) Mr. A. Majeed Memon, learned Senior Advocate being ably assisted by Mr. D.P. Dhal, Advocate strenuously argued that while rejecting the bail application of the petitioner on the last occasion in vide order dated 28.03.2016, this Court taking into account the period of detention of the petitioner as well as submission of final charge sheet, directed the learned Trial Court to take immediate and effective steps for framing of charge and also to take all possible steps to proceed with the trial on day to day basis, to identify and examine the material witnesses at the earliest and it was further observed that if the trial is not concluded within a period of one year from the date of pronouncement of the order for reasons not attributable to the petitioner, the petitioner will be at liberty to apply for bail afresh before the learned Trial Court which shall be considered in the light of the situation prevailing then. He emphasized that in spite of such order, there was no progress in the trial and when the petitioner approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the order dated 28.03.2016 passed in the Hon'ble Court did not interfere with the order of this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India and thereby reaffirmed the observation made by this Court relating to expeditious trial. Since there was no progress in trial of the case, the petitioner has to file this bail application and this Court vide order dated 12.05.2017 made a specific direction to the learned trial Court to frame charge positively on 20.05.2017 and ultimately the charge was framed on 05.06.2017. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that even thereafter also not a single witness was produced by the prosecution before the learned Trial Court though the case was posted for trial on 06.07.2017, 07.07.2017, 20.07.2017, 28.07.2017 and 09.08.2017. It is contended that one of the coaccused namely Manas Ranjan Mohanty has been released on bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.684 of 2017 vide order dated 11.04.2017 on the ground that he had remained in custody for more than one year and nine months in jail. He further submitted that another coaccused namely Madan Mohan Biswal who was the Deputy Director of Mines, Joda was also released on bail by the learned Trial Court on surrendering on 06.07.2017 and all other coaccused persons arrested so far are on bail and some of the coaccused persons have even granted anticipatory bail and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity and equity. He further contended that since as per the previous order of this Court dated 28.03.2016 passed in , the delay in commencement of the trial is not attributable to the petitioner and in view of the change in the circumstances, the bail petition of the petitioner requires favourable reconsideration. Learned counsel emphasized that as per charge sheet, there are 178 witnesses to be examined and 50,000 pages of documents are to be proved and it is not possible to conclude the trial for years together even if it is held on daytoday basis in view of number of counsels engaged by different accused persons who are supposed to crossexamine all those witnesses and that the accused persons would adduce defence evidence particularly when the learned Trial Court has not been specifically designated to try this case only and it has got several assignments and therefore, the Court cannot grant complete time to this case. He further contended that the petitioner requires a 'fair trial' and he has to go through the voluminous documents filed by the prosecution and consult his lawyer to prepare for his defence which is not possible remaining in custody. It is further contended that since most of the witnesses are official witnesses and all the documents are before the learned Trial Court, there is no chance of tampering with the same and in the event of any apprehension in that respect, stringent conditions may be imposed while granting bail to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of Sanjay Chandra Vrs. C.B.I. reported in (2012) 1 Supreme Court Cases 40 and State of Kerala Vrs. Raneef reported in 2011 (1) Supreme Court Cases 784.