do retrieved.asp(4)

CANo.10/15AbhishekSinghVs.AnjanaRai

31.3.2015

Present: Sh.AdityaVardhan,Ld.Counselfortheappellant.RespondentinpersonwithSh.C.K.Sharma,Advocate.

Vakalatnamafiled.

Ld. Counsel for respondent isseeking time to file to reply.

TCRreceived.

Tocomeupon10.4.2015fordisposal.

(DINESHKUMARSHARMA)ADDITIONALSESSIONSJUDGENEWDELHI/31.3.2015

CCNo.88/12RCNo.1(A)/2012CBIVs.PradeepKumarSinghetc.

31.3.2015

Present: Sh.K.P.Singh,Ld.PPforCBI.

A1PradeepKumarSinghonbail.A2SunilKesharyabsent.A3RavinderSinghonbail.Sh.SandeepSharma,Ld.CounselforA1,A2andA3.

ExemptionapplicationonbehalfofA2SunilKesharymoved.

Ld.Counselsubmitsthatwitnessespresent,ifany,maybeexaminedand

heshallnotdisputetheidentityofaccused.Heard.Exemptionallowedfor

today.

PW11 Sh. Arvind Mukherjee is present, his cross

examinationrecordedandheisdischarged.

PW13 Inspector Kailash Sahu is present, his further

examinationinchiefandpartcrossexaminationrecordedandfurthercross

examinationdeferredsinceitislunchtime.

Belistedat2:00pmtodayitself.

(DINESHKUMARSHARMA)SPECIALJUDGE(CBI05)

NEWDELHI/31.3.2015At2:00pm


A1PradeepKumarSinghonbail.A2SunilKesharyexemptedfortoday.A3RavinderSinghonbail.Sh.SandeepSharma,Ld.CounselforA1,A2andA3.

PW13InspectorKailashSahu ispresent, his furthercross

examinationrecordedandheisdischarged.

PW14Sh.AnilKumarispresentanddischargedunexamined

sinceLd.PPhasdroppedthiswitnessvideseparatestatement.

Letcasenowbefixedfor 07.4.2015 for fixingscheduleof

evidence.

Ld.PPisdirectedtoindicatethewitnesseswhomCBItendto

examine.


NEWDELHI/31.3.2015

CCNo.02/2014RCNo.5(A)/2014CBIVs.SunilKumarD.O.D.25.3.2015&27.3.2015

31.3.2015


ConvictSunilKumarinpersonwithSh.PuneetAhluwalia,Advocate.

Filetakenuptodayonapplicationmovedonbehalfofconvict

SunilKumarfordepositingthefine.FineofRs.25,000/deposited.

Earlierdatei.e.04.4.2015standscancelled.

FilebeconsignedtoRecordRoom.


NEWDELHI/31.3.2015

CCNo.04/14RCNo.2(E)/2013CBIVs.P.E.Lyngdoh

31.3.2015


Sh.RanjeetSingh,Ld.ProxyCounselforSh.KailashPandey,Ld.CouselforA4andA5.

Ld.ProxyCounselsubmitsthatthecopiesarecomplete.

None ispresent forA1toA3. It hasbeen informedthat

someofficial of STChadappearedyesterdayandhehadreceived the

copies.

Tocomeupon10.4.2015.


NEWDELHI/31.3.2015

RCNo.DAI2013A0033CBIVs.NeelamSehgal&others

31.3.2015

Present: Sh.K.P.Singh,Ld.PPforCBI.InspectorS.K.Khullar,InvestigatingOfficer.

FreshChargeSheetreceivedbywayofassignment. It be

checked.

Be listedon 16.4.2015 for consideration. Documentsbe

filedonthesaiddate.


NEWDELHI/31.3.2015

CCNo.05/13RCNo.BDI/2012/E/0001CBIVs.M/sMahuaMediaPvt.Ltd.

31.3.2015

Present: Sh.K.P.Singh,Ld.SeniorPPforCBI.

A1M/sMahuaMediaPvt.Ltd.isbeingrepresentedbyA2P.K.Tewari.

A2P.K.TewariandA3AnandTewarionbailwithLd.CounselSh.MadhavKhurana.

A4M/sSJATechnicalConsultantsPvt.Ltd.isbeingrepresentedbyA8KrishnaDasShah.

A8KrishnaDasShahinpersonwithLd.CounselSh.M.A.Niyazi.

A5BasantGuptainpersonwithLd.CounselSh.DevenderChaudhary.

A6Dr.SitaRamGuptainpersonwithLd.CounselSh.SunilSethi.

A7RitaBablaniinpersonwithLd.CounselSh.RajeshBatra.

A9BrijBhushanSethiinpersonwithLd.CounselSh.HarishKohli.

A10RajeshKumarBhargava,A11SonaDebnathandA12RajeshGuptainpersonwithLd.CounselSh.AmitSharma.

A5, A6, A7 and A9 are admitted to Court bail vide a

separate detailed order dictated and announced in the open court on

furnishingpersonalbondinthesumofRs.50,000/withtwosuretiesofthe

likeamountandsubjecttotermsandconditionsasmentionedindetailed

bailorder.However,atrequestofLd.CounselforA10,A11andA12they

are admitted to Court bail vide a separate detailed order dictated and

announcedintheopencourtonfurnishingpersonalbondinthesumofRs.

50,000/ with one surety of the like amount and subject to terms and

conditionsasmentionedindetailedbailorderastheyareunabletoarrange

twosureties.

Vide another separate detailed order an application for

cancellationofbailofA2andA3movedbytheCBIhisalsodismissed.

Tocomeupforargumentsonchargeon20.4.2015.


NEWDELHI/31.3.2015

CRNo.68/15VMSSystemsLtd.&Ors.

Vs.SojitzCorporation

31.3.2015

Present: Sh.HemVashisht,Ld.CounselforthePetitioner.

Freshrevisionpetitionreceivedbywayofassignment. Itbe

checkedandregistered.

Issue notice to the respondent through Ld. Counsel for

respondentsappearingbeforethetrialcourtfor06.4.2015.

TrialCourtRecordbealsocalled.

(DINESHKUMARSHARMA)ADDITIONALSESSIONSJUDGENEWDELHI/31.3.2015

CCNo.88/12CBIVs.PradeepKumarSinghetc.Pageno.1of1

C.C.NO.88/12CBIVs.PradeepKumarSingh

etc.

31.3.2015

WithoutOath

StatementofSh.K.P.Singh,Ld.PPforCBI

IdropPWSh.AnilKumarfromthelistofwitnessessincethefacts

whicharetobeprovedbythesaidwitness,havealreadybeenprovenby

otherwitnesses.

RO&AC

(DINESHKUMARSHARMA)SPECIALJUDGE,(CBI05)

NEWDELHI/31.3.2015

CCNo.88/12CBIVs.P.K.Singhetc.(PW11)Pageno.1of3


etc.

31.3.2015

OnS.A.

PW11 : StatementofSh.ArvindMukherjee(Recalledforcross

examination in continuation of examinationinchief conducted on

16.3.2015).

XXXbySh.SandeepSharma,Ld.CounselforA1,A2andA3.

At no point of time, I had any discussion with competent

authoritySh.SushilKumarShinde,Hon'bleMinisterforHomeAffairs,in

respecttothefactsordocumentssentbytheCBIinthiscase. Vol.We

processthecaseonfileat outend,beforesending it tothecompetent

authority.Withoutlookingintothefile,Icannotsaywhetheritwasdulyin

theknowledgeofthecompetentauthoritythatthereisnocomplainantin

thepresentcase. AllegationagainstaccusedP.K.Singhwasofdemand

andacceptanceofmoneyforextensionofvisaoftheforeignnational.Itis

notinmyknowledgewhetherthefactthatatnopointoftimetheVisaof

foreignnationalwasextended. Icannotsaywhetheranysuchfactwas

brought to the knowledge of the competent authority before grant of

sanction.IdonotrememberwhetherthefactthataccusedP.K.Singhhad

nothingtodowithextensionofvisaofforeignnational,asallegedbyCBI.I

donotrememberwhetherthe

CCNo.88/12CBIVs.P.K.Singhetc.(PW11)Pageno.2

of3

competentauthorityhadknowledgethatthereisnowitnessrelatedtothe

allegedtransactionofbribeinthepresentcase.Idonotrememberifthe

factthataccusedwasfoundinpossessionofaroundRs.30,000/atthe

timeofhisarrest,wasbroughttomyknowledgeornot.Ihadbeenshown

thestatementofthewitnessesandthesamewereperusedbymeandthe

competent authority. I donot remember if four witnesses, namely, Sh.

ShashiBodhMishra,Sh.AnilKumar,Sh.YogeshSharmaandSh.Vinod

KumarwerefromMinistryofHomeAffairs.Idonotknowifthefilerelating

toCambodiannationalpertaintoabovesaidfourpersons.Idonotknowif

thesepeoplehavemadestatement thataccusedPradeepKumarSingh

hadnoroletoplayinthefilerelatingtoCambodiannationalandaccused

PradeepKumarSinghhadneverapproachedthesepersonsatanypointof

timeinthisregard.IamnotawareifthefilerelatingtoCambodiannational

wasdealt with bySection IVof MHA,whereasaccusedwasposted in

SectionVII.Ihadcometoknowthattherewasrecordedconversationalso

inthiscase,butIdidnothearthesame. Idonotknowwhoelsewere

madeaccusedinthiscasebytheCBI.Thesanctionorderwasdraftedby

me. IamnotawareifinJaisalmerHousethereissurveillanceofCCTV

cameracoveringtheplaceofallegedincidenceHon'bleHomeMinisterwas

actingonbehalfofHon'blePresidentofIndia. Thedelegationofthese

powersareunderTransactionofbusinessrules.Thefilehadnevergoneto

President'sOffice.ItiswrongtosuggestthatSanctionhasbeenaccorded

mechanicallywithoutapplicationofmind.Itisfurther


of3

wrongtosuggestthathadthefilebeenperusedandtheentireevidence

hadbeenlookedinto, thesanctionwouldnothavebeengranted inthis

case.IhavenotbroughtTransactionofbusinessrulestodayinthecourt

northesamewassuppliedbymetotheIO. Itiswrongtosuggestthat

graveprejudicehasbeencausedtotheaccusedforthereasonofaccord

ofsanctionagainsthimwithoutapplicationofmind.Itiswrongtosuggest

thatHon'bleHomeMinisterhad notaccordedanysanctionandnosuch

orderisavailableontherecord.ItiswrongtosuggestthatIamdeposing

falsely.

RO&AC


NEWDELHI/31.3.2015

CCNo.88/12CBIVs.P.K.Singhetc.(PW13)Pageno.1of12


etc.

31.3.2015

OnS.A.

PW13:StatementofInspectorKailashSahu(tenderedforfurther

examinationinchief in continuation of examinationinchief

conductedon23.3.2015)

On 19.01.2012, I obtained specimen voice of accused

Pradeep Kumar Singh and accused Ravinder Singh, for which I had

preparedSpecimenVoiceRecordingMemoseparately.

I have seen Specimen Voice Recording Memo (D11)

Ex.PW9/Adated19.01.2012.ItbearsmysignaturesatpointC.

I havealsoseenSpecimenVoiceRecordingMemo (D12)

Ex.PW9/Bdated19.01.2012.ItbearsmysignaturesatpointC.

In respect of specimen voice of accused Pradeep Kumar

Singh,aCDmarkS1waspreparedandinrespectofspecimenvoiceof

accusedRavinderSinghaCDmarkS2wasprepared.Inthepresenceof

independentwitnesses,boththeaccusedpersonsPradeepKumarSingh

andRavinderSinghwereaskedforgivingtheirspecimenvoiceforwhich

theyvoluntarilyagreed.Thereafter,theirspecimenvoiceswererecordedin

aDVR,afterensuringitsemptiness,andthesameweretransferredand

copiedintwo

CCNo.88/12CBIVs.P.K.Singhetc.(PW13)Pageno.2of

12

separateblankCDsthroughanofficiallaptop.

Atthisstage,ayellowcolourenvelopEx.S1,producedfrom

Malkhana CBI, sealed with court seal is opened which is found to be

containinganotheryellowenvelop(opened),whichcontainsawhitecloth

pullandaEx.PW9/CandaCD(S1)inaCDcoverEx.PW9/B. Thewhite

cloth pullanda bears my signatures at point B. The CD bears my

signaturesatpointB.


Malkhana CBI, sealed with court seal is opened which is found to be

containinganotheryellowenvelop(opened),whichcontainsawhitecloth

pullandaEx.PW9/FandaCD(S2)inaCDcover Ex.PW9/E. Thewhite

cloth pullanda bears my signatures at point B. The CD bears my

signaturesatpointB.

On20.01.2012,I obtainedspecimenvoiceofaccusedSunil

Keshary, for which I had prepared Specimen Voice Recording Memo

separately.

IhaveseenSpecimenVoiceRecordingMemo (D13) dated

20.01.2012.ThesameisnowEx.PW13/B(D13)andbearsmysignatures

atpointA.


MalkhanaCBI,sealedwiththesealofCFSL,isopenedwhichisfoundto

be containing another yellowenvelop (opened), which contains a white

cloth


12

pullanda and a CD (S3) in a CDcover. The white cloth pullanda is

Ex.PW13/C and bears my signatures at point A. The CD is now

Ex.PW13/DandbearsmysignaturesatpointA.

Aroughsiteplanwasalsoprepared.

I have seen Rough site plan Ex.PW3/B. It bears my

signaturesalongwithmyofficialstampatpointC.

At this stage, Malkhana Moharrar has produced certain

documentsandtheLd.PPseektoprovethesaiddocuments,statingthat

the photocopies of these documents have already been Marked in the

deposition of PW10. Thesedocuments were seized throughaSeizure

Memo. Copyof theSeizureMemo is MarkAand thedocumentsnow

produced,arementionedinsaidSeizureMemoatserialno.2and3.

I have seen order of Ministry of Home Affairs dated

05.01.2012,originalofMarkA2.ThesameisnowEx.PW13/E.(Objected

toonmodeofproof).


13.01.2012,originalofMarkA3. ThesameisnowEx.PW13/F.(Objected

toonmodeofproof).


13.01.2012,originalofMarkA4.ThesameisnowEx.PW13/G.(Objected

toonmodeofproof).

Ihaveseenrecordedcallsinformationreport,originalofMark


12

A1(Colly.).ThesameisnowEx.PW13/H(colly.)runningintofivepages.

(Objectedtoonmodeofproof).

The investigation of the case was transferred to Sh. Raj

Singh,DSP,CBIon30.01.2012.


Idonotknowastounderwhichcircumstancesandonwhose

directions theFIR Ex.PW13/A wasregistered. Nocomplainantnumber

wasassignedtotheinformationbeforeregistrationoftheFIR.Vol.Itwas

onthebasisofsourceinformation.Idonotknowastowhenandhowthe

sourceinformationwasreceivedintheCBIOffice. ItiscorrectthatCBI

worksintermsofCBIManual.Idonotknowwhetheranyverificationwas

done in respect of source information. It is wrong to suggest that

verificationofsourceinformationreportismandatorybeforeactinguponit.

Itdependsuponcasetocase. ItisincorrecttosuggestthatasperCBI

Manual,Chapter8,itisrequiredthatsourceinformationmustbesubmitted

inwritinggivingallavailabledetails.Idonotknowwhetherinthepresent

casethesourceinformationwasreceivedorallyorinwriting.

IhadperusedtheFIREx.PW13/Abeforeactinguponit.Itis

correctthatinFIRitismentionedthatthemodeofinformationisoral.Itis

correcttillthetimeofregistrationofFIR,noallegedtransactionofbribeor

anyincidentoftakingofillegalgratificationhadtakenplace. Itiscorrect

thatin


12

columnno.3oftheFIR,itismentionedthatcriminalconspiracy,public

servant taking illegal gratification. It is incorrect to suggest that FIR

Ex.PW13/A wasregistered in the late night of 17.01.2012, after wehad

concocteda false story against accusedpersonsand in furtheranceof

implicating accused persons falsely we registered this FIR Ex.PW13/A

falsely. It is further incorrect tosuggest that FIR Ex.PW13/A wasnot

handedovertomeinthemorningof17.01.2012.

The source was not available in the office of CBI on

17.01.2012.IcontactedthesourcethroughSPSh.GhanshyamUpadhyay.

The source met me in Jaisalmer House on 17.01.2012. The fact that

accusedRavinderSinghhadgotthegatepassissuedatJaisalmerHouse

at09:25amandhadalsomadecomputerizedapplication formforvisa

relatedservicesatabout10:00amon17.01.2012,wastoldtomebymySP

whogatheredthesaidfactthroughsource,inmypresence. Ihavenot

mentioned the aforesaid fact in any of the Memos. However, I have

mentioned that I had received the information through source. It is

incorrecttosuggestthatnosuchinformationwasconveyedtomeeitherby

theSPorbythesource. Iwasnothavingthetelephonenumberofthe

sourceon17.01.2012. Idonotknowwhetherthesourcewashavingmy

mobilenumberornot. IdonotrememberwhetherIhadanytelephonic

conversationwiththesourceon17.01.2012.Itisincorrecttosuggestthat

my superior officials had instructed me to involve the accused, in any

manner,inafalsecaseandIhadpreparedateamwithamotivetofalse


12

implicatetheaccusedon17.01.2012.

I had not arranged any of the panch witnesses. Both the

independentwitnesseswerearrangedbydutyofficeron17.01.2012.None

oftheindependentwitnesseswasnonetomebefore17.01.2012. Vol.I

mayhavemetthempreviouslyinofficialcapacity.Idonotrememberas

towhichindependentwitnessmetmepreviouslyandonwhatoccasion.It

isincorrecttosuggestthatboththewitnesseswereknowntomeandwere

arrangedbyme,knowinglythattheywillnotinterfereinourillegalactsor

thatboththewitnesseswerewitnessofchoiceandarenotindependent

witnesses.Itisincorrecttosuggestthatnoneofthewitnesseshadgone

through the FIR as the FIR was not in existence in the morning of

17.01.2012.

Whenweentered theJaisalmerHouseatabout11:00am,

noneofushadtakengatepass,however,wehadshownouridentitycards

andhadenteredtheJaisalmerHouse.BesidesmeandwitnessSh.Arun

Kumar Gupta, none other accompanied us inside the Visa Facilitation

Centerat first floor,atabout11:00am. ThewitnessSh.ArunKumar

Guptaremainedpresentwithmeatthattime. Whenthesourcemetme

insidetheofficeofVisaFacilitationCenter, thewitnessSh.ArunKumar

Guptawasneartomebutwasindiscretemanner. Thesourcetalkedto

meforabout12secondsandhefiguredouttheaccusedRavinderSingh

tome.IapproachedthesourcewhenIenteredtheVisaFacilitationCenter

asSPhadgiventhedetailsof thesourcetomebeforereachingthere.

Therewerearound2530people


12

availableattheplacewherethesourcemetme. Outof2530people,I

identifiedthesourcewithin2minutes. Itisincorrecttosuggestthatno

sourcewaspresentintheofficeofVisaFacilitationCenter. Thesource

remained with us in or around Visa Facilitation Center till 6:00 pmon

17.01.2012.

ItisincorrecttosuggestthataccusedP.K.Singhandaccused

RavinderSinghneverhadanykindofinteractionon17.01.2012asdeposed

bymeinmyexaminationinchief.Itisfurtherincorrecttosuggestthatno

conversation took place between accused Pradeep Kumar Singh and

RavinderSinghornodocumentwasprovidedbyaccusedRavinderSingh

toaccusedPradeepKumarSingh. Itisfurtherincorrecttosuggestthat

Ravinder Singh never requested accused Pradeep Kumar Singh for

extensionofvisaofCambodiannational.Itisfurtherincorrecttosuggest

that accusedPradeepKumarSinghhadnotdirectedaccusedRavinder

SinghtomeethimintheVisaFacilitationCenterafterlunch.

WhenaccusedRavinderSingh left theofficeofMinistry of

Homeaffairsat 11:20am,I alongwithwitnessSh.ArunKumarGupta,

followedhimtilltheexitgate.IdonotknowastowhereaccusedRavinder

Singhproceeded further andbywhichmodehehadproceeded further

after coming out of the MHAbuilding. It is not in myknowledge that

accusedRavinderSingh,againsaid,itisincorrectthataccusedRavinder

Singh had deposited the visa application form along with the relevant

documentsinSectionIVbeforeleavingtheMHAbuildingatabout11:00

am.Itiscorrectthaton


12

17.01.2012,Ihadnotwitnessedanytransactionofmoneybetweenaccused

RavinderSinghandPradeepKumarSingh.

At3:00pm,IwasneartheJaisalmerHousegate. Witness

Sh.ArunKumarGuptawasalsoaccompanyingmeatthattime.Ihadseen

accusedRavinderSinghentering thegateofJaisalmerHouseat about

3:00pm. IcannotsaywhetherwitnessSh.ArunKumarGuptahadalso

observedaccusedRavinderSinghcomingorenteringJaisalmerHouseat

3:00pm. Therewere34countersnearthegateatfirstfloor,wherethe

applicationsforvisarelatedserviceswerefilledupbytheofficialsofMHA.

Idonotrememberastoonwhichcounter,accusedRavinderSinghwent

forthepurposeofmakingcorrectionsinVisarelatedservicesapplication.I

donotknowthenameordesignationofthepersonwhowassittingatthe

counterwhereaccusedRavinderSinghvisitedafter3:00pm. Ihadnot

interrogatedtheofficialwhomadecorrectionsintheVisaApplicationForm

atthebehestofaccusedRavinderSinghafter3:00pmatanypointoftime.

Thesecondapplication wasprocuredby accusedRavinder Singhafter

makingcorrectionsafter3:00pm.However,hehadmentionedthecorrect

addressoftheapplicantnamelyMs.NoeumSopheap.Idonotremember

astowhataddresswasprovidedafter3:00pmbyaccusedRavinderSingh.

I had gone through the passport of Ms. NoeumSopheap. I do not

remember as to whether the address of Ms. Noeum Sopheap was

mentionedinherpassport. Itwouldbeincorrecttosuggestthatnoneof

theapplicationsEx.PW3/E


12

(colly.)bearstheaddressofapplicant,namely,Ms.NoeumSopheap.Vol.

Theapplication isbearingaddressof theapplicantasBLK1,Abbas

Manzil,IIIrdFloor,AndheriEast,Mumbai,istheaddressofapplicantwhich

wasprovidedbyaccusedRavinderSinghat3:00pm.

Question : IputittoyouwhetherthepassportofMs.NoeumSopheap

wasseizedbyyouornotandthatwhetheritbearsthecorrectaddressof

Ms.NoeumSopheap.Whathaveyoutosay?

Answer:IhadseizedthepassportofMs.NoeumSopheap.

Atthisstageabrowncolourenvelop(D6)hasbeenproduced

andfromthesamethePassportofMs.NoeumSopheapistakenout. In

the same, the address mentioned is #166/ST.34/SK. Toekthla, Russe

Ykeo/PhnomPEnh. Thepassportis Ex.PW13/DA(D6). TheExhibit

markhasbeenputonthebrownenvelop.Vol.TheaddressofIndiaofMs.

NoeumSopheapmaybeinthedocumentstapledinthepassport.

The witness after going through the passport and the

documents stapled with the same, states that Indian address is not

mentionedinthesame.

Itiscorrectthatinboththeapplications Ex.PW3/E(Colly.),

theappointmentdateandtimeismentionedas17.01.201210:00am.Itis

wrongtosuggestthatthetime10:00amindicatesthetimeoffillingupthe

application.Itiswrongtosuggestthatbothoftheabovesaidapplications

werefilledatorbefore10:00amon17.01.2012.Itiswrongtosuggestthat

hadtheformbeen


of12

filledupat3:00pmorlater,thetimeontheapplicationwouldhavebeen

printedas3:00pmasanappointmentdateandtimeofeither3:00pmor

thereafter.Itisincorrecttosuggestthatby3:00pm,theformfilledupby

accusedRavinderSinghofapplicanthadalreadybeenprocessedbySh.

ShashiBodhMishra.IamnotawareifSh.ShashiBodhMishrahadmade

a statement during investigation that he hadcompleted/ processed this

applicationduringlunchtime.

ItiswrongtosuggestthataccusedRavinderSinghhadnot

cometoJaisalmerHouseon17.01.2012atoraround3:00pm.Itisfurther

wrongtosuggestthatRavinderSinghdidnotmeetcoaccusedP.K.Singh

on 17.01.2012 at 3:00 pmor after. It is further wrong to suggest that

accusedRavinderSinghhasnotmadecomputerizedapplicationforvisa

related services again from the concerned counter on the directions of

accusedPradeepKumarSingh.

ThewitnessSh.SushilKumarVaidhadnotenteredtheVisa

FacilitationCenterOfficebefore3:00pmatanypointoftime. Accused

RavinderSinghgotthephotocopiesofhisdrivinglicenceandpassportof

Cambodiannational fromthegroundfloorwherethephotocopycounter

waslocated,whichwasownedbytheprivateperson. Ididnotrecorded

thestatementofthepersonwhohadphotocopiedthedocumentsafter3:00

pmontherequestoftheaccusedRavinderSingh,norIhadinterrogated

thatperson.Ihavenotshownthecounterofthephotocopyinthesiteplan

Ex.PW3/B.

ItiscorrectthatIhavenotshownthepositionofaccused


of12

RavinderSinghintheaforementionedSiteplan. Vol.Thissiteplanonly

pertainstothesittingarrangementoftheofficeofaccusedPradeepKumar

Singh. It is incorrecttosuggestthataccusedRavinderSinghhadnot

madephotocopiesofhisdrivinglicenceandpassportoftheCambodian

national or that accusedRavinder Singhhadnot handedover thesaid

documentstoaccusedPradeepKumarSingh. Neitherthephotocopyof

drivinglinceceofaccusedRavinderSinghnorthephotocopyofpassportof

Cambodiannationalwererecoveredorfoundeitherinthepossessionof

accusedPradeepKumarSinghorfromhisofficeroom. Itisincorrectto

suggestthatnosuchincidenthastakenplaceorthatIhavedeliberately

deposedfalsely.

Idonotrememberwhetheranydrivinglicencewasfoundin

possessionofaccusedRavinderSinghon17.01.2012.

At this stage, the ArrestcumSeizure Memo of accused

RavinderSinghdated17.01.2012Ex.PW3/D(D5)isshowntothewitness.

Thewitnessaftergoingthroughthesamestatesthatthedrivinglicence

wasnotfoundfromthepossessionofaccusedRavinderSingh.Vol.The

accusedRavinderSinghhadlefttheofficeintheevening,therefore,the

possibilityofleavinghisdrivinglicenceinhiscaroranywhereelsecannot

beruledout.ItisincorrecttosuggestthatIamgivingfalseexplanationto

cover upmy fault or thataccusedRavinderSinghwasnot carryinghis

driving licence on 17.01.2012 or at no point of time he has done the

photocopyofhisdrivinglicenceintheofficeofMHA. It is incorrectto

suggestthatthereisnophotocopierinthe


of12

officeofMHAasstatedbyme.

I donotrememberthetimewhenaccusedRavinderSingh

madeacalltosomeoneandmadeaccusedPradeepKumarSinghtalkto

thatperson.However,theconversationonthephonetookplaceforabout

1or2minutes.IdonotrememberthatIhadobservedanysuchcallmade

inanydocumentpertainingtocalldetailscollectedbyme.Itisincorrectto

suggestthatnosuchcall wasmadebyaccusedRavinderSinghorthat

accusedRavinderSinghwasmovingaroundintheareaofNewDelhiat

the relevant time. It is further incorrect to suggest that there is not

questionofnoticingtheactivitiesofaccusedPradeepKumarSinghand

Ravinder Singh at about 3:00 pm or thereafter in the office of Visa

Facilitation Center, as accused Ravinder Singh never came back after

leavingtheofficeatabout10:00am.

Furthercrossexaminationdeferredtill2:00pmsinceitislunchtime.

RO&AC


NEWDELHI/31.3.2015


7


etc.

31.3.2015

OnS.A.

PW13:StatementofInspectorKailashSahu(tenderedforfurther

crossexaminationincontinuationoffurtherexaminationinchiefand

partcrossexaminationconductedbeforelunchsession.)


Atabout4:50pm,mypositionwasatVisaFacilitationCenter

whereasthepositionofSh.ArunKumarGuptawaswithInspectorSunil

Dutt, andother teammembers whowerenearby Jaisalmer Houseand

werecominginsideandgoingoutsidetheJaisalmerHouse. I informed

InspectorSunilDuttprobablyonhismobilephone,thataccusedRavinder

SinghhasleftthepremisesofJaisalmerHouse.Icannotsaywhetherthey

themselves noticed accused Ravinder Singh coming inside and going

outsidetheJaisalmerHouseataround3:00pmand4:50pmrespectively.

ItisincorrecttosuggestthatInspectorSunilDuttwasnotpresentoutside

theJaisalmerHouseattherelevanttimeoraccusedRavinderKumarhad

notcomeoutsidetheJaisalmerHouseat4:50pm.Icannotsaywhether

aspertheCallDetailReportofInspectorSunilDutt,hehasnotreceived

anycall frommycellphonenumberatabout4:50pm. Vol.Ihavenot

seentheCDRofInspectorSunilDutt.Itisincorrecttosuggestthatasper

theCDRofmobilephoneofInspectorSunil


7

Dutt, his location isnotat CBIofficeeven in themorningof17.01.2012

whenIhadpreparedtheraidingteam.

Afterthegapofabout15minutes, when accused Ravinder

SinghlefttheJaisalmerHouse,sourceinformedmethatthetransactionof

bribehastakenplace. Immediately,ImadeatelephoniccalltoInspector

Sunil Dutt and instructed him to apprehend and interrogate accused

Ravinder Singh. By that time accused Ravidner Singh was not

apprehendedby InspectorSunil Dutt. At that time InspectorSunil Dutt

informedmethathewasatConnaughtPlacearea.Idonotknowastoby

whichmodeandwithwhom,accusedRavinderSinghreachedConnaught

Placearea. I donotremember if InspectorSunil Dutt hadtoldmethe

modebywhichaccusedRavinderSinghhadtravelledtillConnaughtPlace.

However,InspectorSunilDuttfollowedhiminhisofficialvehicle. Idonot

remember whether the fact that Ravinder Singh was using a car on

17.01.2012,wasbroughttomyknowledgebyanyoneatanypointoftime.

Itisincorrecttosuggestthatatnopointoftime,sourceinformedmeabout

the bribe transaction of Rs.15,000/ handed over to accused Pradeep

KumarSinghbyaccusedRavinderSingh.Itisfurtherincorrecttosuggest

thatIhadnotmadeanytelephonecalltoInspectorSunilDutttoapprehend

andinterrogateaccusedRavinderSinghinconnectionwithhisvisitorto

followhim. It is incorrect tosuggest that InspectorSunil Dutt hadnot

informedmethataccusedSunilKesharyhasconfessedhisguiltandstated

thathehadhandedoverRs.15,000/toaccusedPradeepKumarSingh.It

isfurther


7

incorrecttosuggestthatIhadnottoldInspectorSunilDutttobringback

accusedRavinderSinghatVisaFacilitationCenteratJaisalmerHouse.It

iscorrectthatitisnotmentionedinRecoveryMemoEx.PW3/A,prepared

bymethat source informedmeabout the transactionofbribeand that

InspectorSunilDuttfollowedorapprehendedaccusedRavinderSinghfrom

theareaofConnaughtPlace.Itisincorrecttosuggestthatthesefactsare

notmentionedtherein in theRecoveryMemobecausenosuch incident

hadtakenplaceand inorder tomakeafalsecase, wehad introduced

thesefactslateronbywayofimprovingourstory.

I had given instructions to Inspector Sunil Dutt to bring

accused Ravinder Singh at Jaisalmer House at about 05:15 pm. I

challengedaccusedPradeepKumar Singhat about 5:30 pm. When I

challengedaccusedPradeepKumarSingh,12personsatthegateofVisa

FacilitationCenterwerepresent,however,allofthemleftthehallwhenwe

challengedaccusedPradeepKumarSingh.Itisincorrecttosuggestthat

PradeepKumarSinghprotestedoverthefalsechallengeandspecifically

toldusthathehasnoconcernwithaccusedRavinderSingh.Itisincorrect

tosuggestthathewassearchedbywitnessSh.SunilKumarVaid,inthe

absenceofaccusedRavinderSingh.Wehadnotrecordedanydisclosure

statement of accusedRavinder Singhor PradeepKumar Singh. It is

incorrecttosuggestthataccusedRavinderSinghhadnotinformed,atany

point of time, that he has handed over an amount of Rs. 15,000/

comprisingof13GCnotesofRs.1000/denominationand4GCnotes


7

ofRs.500/.

IdonotrememberthedenominationsorparticularoftheGC

notesrecovered fromthepossessionofaccusedPradeepKumarSingh

besidestheRs.15,000/. However,GCnotesofRs.1000/denomination

andRs.500/denominationwerethepartofthatamountrecoveredbeside

Rs.15,000/.Icannotsayastohowmanypocketswerethereinthepantof

accusedPradeepKumarSingh. Vol. Theamountrecoveredotherwise

thanRs.15,000/wererecoveredfrompocketsotherthanrighthandpant

pocket,whereasRs.15,000/wererecoveredfromrighthandpantpocketof

the accused. I had not seized the pant of the accused from where

recoveriesweremade.ItisincorrecttosuggestthatatotalamountofRs.

33,900/wasrecoveredfromtherightsidepantpocketoftheaccusedor

thataccusedhadtoldusthattheentireamountsbelongstohim. It is

incorrecttosuggestthatoutofRs.33,900/recoveredfromaccused,we

deliberately for making a false case, separated Rs.15,000/ out of Rs.

33,900/andplanteditupontheaccusedPradeepKumarSingh,allegingit

tobebribeamount.

ItisincorrecttosuggestthattheentireamountofRs.33,900/

wasrecoveredbySh.SunilKumarVaidintheabsenceofInspectorSunil

DuttorSh.ArunKumarGupta. ItisfurtherincorrecttosuggestthatSh.

ArunKumarGuptahadnotrecoveredRs.15,000/fromtherightsidepant

pocket of accused Pradeep Kumar Singh on my instructions in the

presenceofotherteammembers.CCNo.88/12CBIVs.P.K.Singhetc.(PW13)Pageno.5of

7

IhadpreparedtheRecoveryMemoonmyOfficelaptop.Itis

correctthatIhavenotmentionedthisfactintheRecoveryMemo.Vol.I

hadtakentheprintoutofmemoinCBIOffice.

At thetimeof thearrestofaccusedPradeepKumarSingh

andAccusedRavinderKumarSingh,Ihadtakenintopossessiontheitems

mentionedintheirPersonalSearchMemoincludingtheircell phones. I

hadkeptall theitemswithmethereafter. Vol.Thoughthecell phones

weretakenintopossession,however,thesamewereswitchedofflaterin

theCBIOffice.Nooneusedthecellphoneoftheaccusedpersonsafter

theirseizurebyme.

Question:IputtoyouthatthecellphoneofaccusedRavinderSinghwas

inusetillabout11:pmof17.01.2012.Whathaveyoutosay?

Answer:Inmyknowledge,nobodyusedthesaidcellphone.

It is incorrect tosuggest that accusedRavinderSinghwas

apprehendedat about 10:30 pm/ 11:00pm, fromNewDelhi area from

wherehewasbrought to theCBIofficeandhewasmadeanaccused

falsely.

The entire proceedings as mentioned in Recovery Memo

Ex.PW3/A,wereconcludedat11:00pmon17.01.2012.Boththewitnesses

weredischargedat11:00pm,however,theyremainedinthemorningfor

4:00to5:00am.Noproceedingshadtakenplacefrom11:00pmto4:30

amandnoneofthewitnesseshaddoneanything.

ItisincorrecttosuggestthatentiredocumentsincludingFIR,

RecoveryMemoEx.PW3/A,ArrestcumPersonalSearchMemoEx.PW3/C


7

and Ex.PW3/D and other documents were fabricated by us after the

apprehensionofaccusedRavinderSinghat11:00pmandassuch,both

thewitnessesweresaidtoremainpresentattheCBIOfficetillmorningof

18.01.2012.

It iscorrectthatintheHallwhereaccusedPradeepKumar

Singhhadhisseat, otherofficersalsoused tosit. I did notseize the

register/filefromwhichRs.17,000/weretaken. Itisincorrecttosuggest

thataccusedPradeepKumarSinghwasnotconcernedwiththefilefrom

whichtheamountofRs.17,000/wererecoveredorthataccusedPradeep

KumarSinghwasnotawareabouttherecoveryofRs.17,000/fromany

suchregister.

Duringthecourseofinvestigation,Ihadcometoknowthat

visaofCambodiannationalwasextended. Itisincorrecttosuggestthat

theprayerofextensionofvisawasrejectedbythedepartmentorthatshe

wasdirectedtoexitthecountry.IdidnotexaminetheCambodiannational.

IhavenoknowledgeifCambodiannationalleftthecountryornot.

Iwasdirectedon18.01.2012ataround10:00ambySP,CBI

tovisit SpecialUnit. TherewasnoofficialcommunicationbetweenAnti

CorruptionBranchandSpecial Unit prior to18.01.2012 in regard to the

presentcase.TheCDwasgiventomeinsealedformbySpecialUnit.It

is incorrect tosuggestthatCDhasnoconnection,whatsoever,withthe

present accusedpersons. It is incorrect to suggest that this CDwas

fabricatedincollusionwithSpecialUnittogeneratefalseevidenceagainst

theaccusedpersons.Ihad


7

nottakenspecimenvoiceofaccusedpersonson17.01.2012. I hadnot

preparedcertificateu/s.65BofIndianEvidenceAct,inregardtotheCDof

specimenvoice. It isincorrecttosuggestthatCDsS1toS3donot

containthespecimenvoicesofaccusedpersons.Itisincorrecttosuggest

thatIamdeposingfalsely.

RO&AC


NEWDELHI/31.3.2015

INTHECOURTOFDINESHKUMARSHARMA,SPECIALJUDGE,CBI05,PATIALAHOUSECOURTS,NEWDELHI

CCNo.05/13RCNo.BDI/2012/E001/BS&FC/NewDelhi

U/s120BIPCr/wSection13(1)(d)ofPCAct,1988

Inthematterof:State(CBI)

Vs. M/sMahuaMediaPvt.Ltd.

etc.

31.3.2015

BAILAPPLICATIONOFACCUSEDBASANTGUPTA

Appearances

Sh.K.P.Singh,Ld.PPforCBI.Sh.DevenderChaudhary,Ld.CounselforaccusedBasantGupta.

ORDER

1. VidethisorderIproposetodisposeofbail application

ofaccusedBasantGuptafiledbyhisLd.Counsel.

2. The case of prosecution is that accused Anand Tewari,

DirectorofM/sMahuaMediaPvt.Ltd.hadappliedforloanforthe

purposeofbuyingBroadcastingEquipmentsforuplinking,OBVans

andforsettingupDigitalStudioatNoidaandKolkata.Theprojects

wasfinancedunderconsortiumarrangementscomprisingofPunjab

National Bank as lead bank, Union Bank of India and Bank of

Baroda. In the process of disbursement, the consortiumof the

BanksdecidedtoopenanEscrowAccountandtheamountofloan

wascreditedanddisbursedfromthisaccountfromtimetotime.M/s

MMPL had obtained disbursement of the loans by submitting

fabricated quotations for purported supply of equipments and

diverted the borrowed fundsdisbursedbyPunjab National Bank.

Certainlapseswerenoticedonthepartofbankofficialsduringthe

disbursal,suchasgenuinenessofsuppliesofequipmentswasnot

verified.

3. Sh. Devender Chaudhary, Ld. Counsel for accused has

soughtbail primarilyonthegroundthataccusedhasroots inthe

Society.Ithasbeensubmittedthattheaccusedshallattendthetrial

regularlyandthereisnopossibilityofhisbeingrunningawayfrom

thecauseofjustice.

4. Sh.K.P.Singh,Ld.PPforCBIsubmittedthataccusedBasant

Guptawashandlingtheaccount asDeskOfficer, Dr. S.R. Gupta

was supervising the account as Chief Manager and Smt. Rita

BublaniwasoverallinchargeofthebranchasBranchHead.They

wereresponsibleforattendingworkrelatedtoA/c.ofMMPLatpre

sanction, post sanction, compliance of terms & conditions, post

disbursementfollowup,maintenanceofDPRegisteretc.PNBwas

elected as Lead Banker of the consortium and the term loan

disbursedby Union Bank&Bankof Barodawascredited in the

EscrowA/c. of MMPLmaintainedwith PNB fromwhereDemand

Draftswereissuedinfavourofthesuppliercompanies.Beinglead

banker, theseofficers were required tohandle this account more

carefully. In criminal conspiracy with the borrowers, they hadnot

createdmortgageovertheNoidaprojectsiteinviolationofsanction

terms & conditions and dishonestly submitted legal compliance

reporttoCircleOfficedeclaringcomplianceofterms&conditionsof

sanction, in which non creation of equitable mortgage of Noida

property was suppressed. Investigation revealed that Noida site

neverexisted.Itwasneitherpurchasednorequipmentwasinstalled

on it. The branch officials visited Kolkata site, however, they

dishonestly never conductedphysical verification of Noida site at

predisbursement and postdisbursement stage. They also

recommendedandreleasedworkingcapitallimitstoMMPL.While

handlingtheA/c.,theyalsodidcertainomissionsincontraventionto

thebanksguidelinesandcirculars,whichcausedwrongfullossto

thebank.

5. Section439(1)of Criminal ProcedureCodeconfersspecial

power on the Sessions Court in respect of bail. In contrast to

Section437(1)Cr.P.CthereisnorestrictionimposedunderSection

439(1) Cr.P.C regarding grant of bail by the Sessions Court to

personsaccusedofoffencepunishablefordeath,imprisonmentfor

life. TheBailremainsundefinedterminCr.P.C. Ithasalsonot

beendefinedinanyotherstatue. However,incommonparlanceit

canbeunderstoodasrightforassertionoffreedomagainstthestate

imposingrestraints.

6. The concept and philosophy of bail was discussed by the

Hon'ble Supreme court in Vaman Narain Ghiya v. State of

Rajasthan,(2009)2SCC281,andcitedwithapproval in Sanjay

ChandraVs. CentralBureauofInvestigation, (2012)1SCC40

interaliaasunder:

"6. "Bail" remains an undefined term in CrPC.

Nowhere else has the term been statutorily defined.

Conceptually, itcontinuestobeunderstoodasaright

for assertion of freedom against the State imposing

restraints.SincetheUNDeclarationofHumanRightsof

1948,towhichIndiaisasignatory,theconceptofbail

hasfoundaplacewithinthescopeofhumanrights.The

dictionarymeaningof theexpression"bail" denotesa

security for appearanceof a prisoner for his release.

Etymologically,thewordisderivedfromanoldFrench

verb "bailer" which means to "give" or "to deliver",

althoughanotherviewisthatitsderivationisfromthe

Latinterm"baiulare",meaning"tobearaburden".Bailis

a conditional liberty. Stroud's Judicial Dictionary (4th

Edn.,1971)spellsoutcertainotherdetails.Itstates:

"...whenamanistakenorarrestedforfelony,

suspicionoffelony,indictedoffelony,oranysuchcase,

sothatheisrestrainedofhisliberty.And,beingbylaw

bailable,offerethsuretytothose whichhaveauthority

to bail him, which sureties are bound for him to the

King'suseinacertainsumsofmoney,orbodyforbody,

thatheshallappearbeforethejusticesofgoaldelivery

atthenextsessions,etc.Thenuponthebondsofthese

sureties,asisaforesaid,heisbailedthatistosay,set

atlibertyuntilthedayappointedforhisappearance."

7. Deprivationoflibertycanberequiredtoensurethatthe

accusedwillstandhistrial. Itisprincipleofcriminaljurisprudence

thateverymanisdeemedtobeinnocenttillfoundguilty.Inthecase

ofStateVs.Balchand(1977)4SCC308,Hon'bleSupremeCourt

interaliaheldasunder:

Thebasic rulemayperhapsbe terselyputas

bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances

suggestiveoffleeingfromjusticeorthwartingthecourse

of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of

repeatingoffencesorintimidatingwitnessesandthelike,

bythepetitionerwhoseeksenlargementonbailfromthe

Court. We do not intend to be exhaustive but only

illustrative.

Itistruethatthegravityoftheoffenceinvolvedis

likelytoinducethepetitionertoavoidthecourseofjustice

andmustweighwithuswhenconsideringthequestionof

jail. Soalsotheheinousnessofthecrime.Evenso,the

recordofthepetitionerinthiscaseisthat,whilehehas

beenonbail throughout in the Trial Court andhewas

released after the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court,

thereisnothingtosuggestthathehasabusedthetrust

placedinhimbythecourt;hissocialcircumstancesalso

are not so unfavourable in the sense of his being a

desperatecharacterorunsocialelementwhois likelyto

betraytheconfidencethattheCourtmayplaceinhimto

turnuptotakejusticeatthehandsoftheCourt. Heis

stated tobeayoungmanof 27yearswith a family to

maintain.Thecircumstancesandthesocialmilieudonot

militate against the petitioner being granted bail at this

stage.Atthesametimeanypossibilityoftheabsconding

or evasion or other abuse can be taken care of by a

directionthatthepetitionerwill reporthimselfbeforethe

policestationonceeveryfortnight.

8. It is settled preposition that overriding consideration

whileconsideringbailare:

i) thenatureandgravityofcircumstancesinwhichtheoffenceis

committed;

ii) the position andstatus of the accusedwith reference to the

victimandthewitnesses;

iii) thelikelihood,oftheaccusedfleeingfromjusticeorrepeating

theoffence;

iv) the likelihoodof jeopardising his life being facedwith a grim

prospectofpossibleconvictioninthecase;

v) thelikelihoodoftamperingwiththewitnesses;and

vi) thehistoryofthecaseaswellasofitsinvestigationandother

relevantgroundswhichcannotbeexhaustivelysetout.

9. It has repeatedly been held that personal liberty is

fundamental and can be circumscribed only by some process

sanctionedbylaworbecomesimperativeinviewofthefactsand

circumstancesof thecase. Superior Courts have timeandagain

demoted thedetentionduring trial asamanonbail hasabetter

chancetoprepareorpresenthiscasethenoneincustody.

In MotiRamVs. StateofM.P.,(1978)4SCC47,theApex

Court while discussing pretrial detention, interalia held as

under:

14. Theconsequencesofpretrialdetentionare

grave. Defendantspresumedinnocentaresubjected

tothepsychologicalandphysicaldeprivationsof jail

life,usuallyundermoreonerousconditionsthanare

imposed on convicted defendants. The jailed

defendantloseshisjobifhehasoneandisprevented

fromcontributing to the preparation of his defence.

Equally important, the burden of his detention

frequentlyfallsheavilyontheinnocentmembersofhis

family.

10. The important principles to be considered while

consideringbailhasbeenenumeratedbyHon'bleSupremeCourtin

PrahladSinghBhatiVs.NCT,Delhi,(2001)4SCC280,thus:

The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be

exercisedonthebasisofwellsettledprincipleshaving

regardtothecircumstancesofeachcaseandnotinan

arbitrarymanner.Whilegrantingthebail,thecourthas

tokeepinmindthenatureofaccusations,thenatureof

the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the

punishmentwhichconvictionwillentail,thecharacter,

behaviour, means and standing of the accused,

circumstances which are peculiar to the accused,

reasonablepossibilityofsecuringthepresenceofthe

accusedat the trial, reasonableapprehensionof the

witnessesbeingtamperedwith,thelargerinterestsof

thepublicorStateandsimilarotherconsiderations.It

hasalsotobekept inmindthatfor thepurposesof

granting the bail the legislature has used the words

"reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the

evidence"whichmeansthecourtdealingwiththegrant

ofbailcanonlysatisfyit(sicitself)astowhetherthere

is a genuinecaseagainst theaccusedand that the

prosecution will be able to produce prima facie

evidenceinsupportofthecharge.Itisnotexpected,at

thisstage,tohavetheevidenceestablishingtheguiltof

theaccusedbeyondreasonabledoubt."

11. Recently,theapexcourtwhiledealingwiththejurisdictionof

thebailinteraliaheldin SanjayChandra vs. CentralBureauof

Investigation(Supra)asunder:

Inbailapplications,generally,ithasbeenlaid

downfromtheearliesttimesthattheobjectofbailis

tosecuretheappearanceoftheaccusedpersonat

histrialbyreasonableamountofbail.Theobjectof

bailisneitherpunitivenorpreventative.Deprivationof

liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it

canberequiredtoensurethatanaccusedpersonwill

standhistrialwhencalledupon.

Thecourtsowemorethanverbalrespecttothe

principlethatpunishmentbeginsafterconviction,and

thateverymanisdeemedtobeinnocentuntil duly

triedanddulyfoundguilty.

Fromtheearliesttimes,itwasappreciatedthat

detentionincustodypendingcompletionoftrialcould

be a cause of great hardship. From time to time,

necessitydemandsthatsomeunconvictedpersons

shouldbeheldincustodypendingtrialtosecuretheir

attendanceatthetrialbutinsuchcases,`necessity'is

theoperativetest.

Inthiscountry,itwouldbequitecontrarytothe

concept of personal liberty enshrined in the

Constitution that anypersonshouldbepunished in

respectofanymatter,uponwhich,hehasnotbeen

convictedorthatinanycircumstances,heshouldbe

deprivedofhislibertyupononlythebeliefthathewill

tamperwiththewitnessesifleftatliberty,saveinthe

most extraordinary circumstances. Apart from the

questionofpreventionbeingtheobjectofarefusalof

bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any

imprisonment before conviction has a substantial

punitive content and it would be improper for any

Courttorefusebailasamarkofdisapprovalofformer

conductwhethertheaccusedhasbeenconvictedfor

itornotortorefusebailtoanunconvictedpersonfor

thepurposeofgivinghimatasteofimprisonmentas

alesson.

12. Inthepresentcasetheaccusedwasnotarrestedduringthe

courseofinvestigation. ThereisnoseriouscontentionoftheCBI

thattheaccused,ifreleasedonbailwouldinterferewiththetrialor

tamper with the evidence. This Court does not see any good

reasontodetaintheaccusedincustodyandparticularlyafterthe

completionoftheinvestigationandfilingofthechargesheet.

13. In the facts and circumstances accused Basant Gupta is

admittedtocourtbailonfurnishingpersonalbondinthesumofRs.

50,000/withtwosuretiesinthelikeamountsubjecttothefollowing

conditions:

1. Accusedshallnotdirectlyorindirectlymakeanyinducement,threat

orpromisetoanypersonacquaintedwiththefactsorthecasesoas

todissuadehimtodisclosesuchfactstotheCourtortoanyother

authority;

2. AccusedshallremainpresentbeforetheCourtonthedatesfixedfor

hearingofthecase.Ifhewantstoremainabsent,thenheshalltake

prior permission of the Court and in case of unavoidable

circumstancesforremainingabsent,heshallseekexemptionwith

therequestthathemaybepermittedtobepresentthroughtheLd.

Counsel;

3. Accusedwillnotdisputehisidentityastheaccusedinthecase;

4. Accused shall surrender his passport, if any (if not already

surrendered),andincase,heisnotaholderofthesame,heshall

sweartoanaffidavit.

Withthis,presentbailapplicationofaccusedstandsdisposed

of.


NEWDELHI/31.3.2015






etc.

31.3.2015

BAILAPPLICATIONOFACCUSEDBRIJBHUSHANSETHI

Appearances

Sh.K.P.Singh,Ld.PPforCBI.Sh.HarishKohli,Ld.CounselforaccusedBrijBhushanSethi.

ORDER


ofaccusedBrijBhushanSethifiledbyhisLd.Counsel.















verified.

3. Sh. HarishKohli, Ld. Counsel for accusedhassought bail

primarilyonthegroundthataccusedhasrootsintheSociety.Ithas

beensubmittedthattheaccusedshallattendthetrialregularlyand

thereisnopossibilityofhisbeingrunningawayfromthecauseof

justice.

4. Sh.K.P.Singh,Ld.PPforCBIsubmittedthataccusedBrij

Bhushan Sethi accepted the assignment and submitted cost

estimation of plant and machinery at Rs. 222.34 crores for the

projectofMMPLwiththereportofB.D.SharmaAssociatesdated

29.3.2010. He also submitted project implementation report

(Machinery and Plant) dated 10.4.2010 certifying receipt and

installationofequipmentstothetuneofRs.108.08croresatNoida

Site of MMPL. Investigation revealed that he hadnot physically

verifiedindividualmachineryandplantandsubmittedhisreporton

thebasisofinvoicesprovidedbytherepresentationofthecompany,

whichinvestigationrevealedtobeforged.









imposingrestraints.





interaliaasunder:






































illustrative.
























committed;




theoffence;














under:










family.






















theoperativetest.

















alesson.







13. InthefactsandcircumstancesaccusedBrijBhushanSethiis



conditions:




authority;






Counsel;




sweartoanaffidavit.


of.


NEWDELHI/31.3.2015






etc.

31.3.2015

BAILAPPLICATIONOFACCUSEDKRISHNADASSHAH

Appearances

Sh.K.P.Singh,Ld.PPforCBI.Sh.M.A.Niyazi,Ld.CounselforaccusedKrishnaDasShah.

ORDER


ofaccusedKrishnaDasShahfiledbyhisLd.Counsel.















verified.

3. Sh. M.A. Niyazi, Ld. Counsel for accused has sought bail


been submitted that accused is an industrial consultant and has

bonafidepreparedtheLenderIndependentEngineerReporthaving

no concern or connection with either the sanction and/or

disbursementoftheloaninquestion.Ithasfurtherbeensubmitted

thatthemainallegedoffenceofconspiracyisconspicuouslyabsent

initscontentsandingredientsintheimputationsmadeagainstthe

accused.Infactingredientsofnoallegedoffencearepresentinthe

allegationsmadeagainsttheaccused.Ithasfurtherbeensubmitted

that even otherwise, the allegations made against the present

accusedareselfcontradictory. Atoneplaceit isallegedthatthe

accused visited Kolkata site at the expense of the borrowers,

however, in thesamebreath it isallegedthatreport is submitted

withoutphysical verificationof theequipments/site. It has further

beensubmittedthatthereportoftheaccusedisnotconfirmationof

installation of equipments at the project sites but only opinions

regarding physical and financial progress under columnNo. 12.3

(Pageno.19)oftheReport. Ithasfurtherbeensubmittedthatin

support of furnishing the opinion by the accused, project model

preparedbySBICaps(whichisonrecord)wasaninputdocument

whichtalksveryhighprofileaboutthepromoters,theirsatisfactory

track records in termsof the implementation of other projects of

similarnature,fulldetailsofequipmentsandutilitiesformingpartof

theprojectandfinallyinanutshell,noindicationisthereanywhere

intheentirereportcontainingof150pagesbywhich,apersoninthe

goingconcernwouldformanyadverseopinionabouttheprojects.It

hasfurtherbeensubmittedthataccusedhasfullycooperatedwith

CBIduringinvestigation.Theentirecaseisbasedondocumentary

evidence which the CBI is already seized of and, therefore, no

custodialdetentionoftheaccusedisrequired.

4. Sh.K.P.Singh,Ld.PPforCBIsubmittedthat therewasa

conditioninthesanctionofUnionBankthatcostoftheprojectisto

bevettedbybanksempanelledArchitect/ProjectEngineerbefore

releaseofthelimit.Thiscompanywasapprovedvalueronthepanel

of UBI, who submitted lender engineers report dtd. 23.09.2010

confirminginstallationofequipmentsattheprojectsitesofMMPL.

Sh. K.D. Shah, Director of this company submitted Vetting of

Project Estimate visavis its Technical & Financial Progress and

CommercialOperationsreporton23.09.2010inrespectofprojects

of MMPL at Kolkata and Noida. Investigation revealed that he

submittedthisreportwithoutconductinganyphysicalverification/

site visits. It is revealed that he visited Kolkata project site on

27.09.2010andasperinternalworkingnotes,hevisitedNoidasite

on01.10.2010anditalsorevealedthatdraftreportswereprepared

on25.09.2010.Investigationalsorevealedthattheinvoiceswhichhe

listedforprocurementandinstallationoftheequipmentswerefound

tobeforged.Thus,inconnivancewiththeborrowers,hesubmitted

the report falsely certifying procurement and installations of all

equipments, which was base for satisfaction of the bankers

regardingimplementationoftheprojects.









imposingrestraints.





interaliaasunder:












illustrative.
























committed;




theoffence;














under:










family.























theoperativetest.

















alesson.







13. InthefactsandcircumstancesaccusedKrishnaDasShahis



conditions:




authority;






Counsel;




sweartoanaffidavit.


of.

(DINESHKUMARSHARMA)

SPECIALJUDGE(CBI05)NEWDELHI/31.3.2015






etc.

31.3.2015

BAILAPPLICATIONOFACCUSEDRAJESHBHARGAVA

Appearances

Sh.K.P.Singh,Ld.PPforCBI.Sh.AmitSharma,Ld.CounselforaccusedRajeshBhargava.

ORDER


ofaccusedRajeshBhargavafiledbyhisLd.Counsel.















verified.

3. Sh.AmitSharma, Ld.Counselforaccusedhassoughtbail


beensubmittedthattheaccusedshallattendthetrialregularlyand

thereisnopossibilityofhisbeingrunningawayfromthecauseof

justice.

4. Sh.K.P.Singh,Ld.PPforCBIsubmittedthataccusedRajesh

Kumar Bhargava in connivance with accused P.K. Tewari and

accusedAnandTewariknowinglyanddishonestlysignedtheforged

invoicesofM/sViaEarth FilmsPvt. Ltd. asauthorizedsignatory.

HissignaturesontheinvoicesofM/sViaEarthFilmsPvt.Ltd.are

confirmed by CFSL. Forged invoices signed by him caused

wrongfullosstothebankstothetuneofRs.16.45crores.









imposingrestraints.





interaliaasunder:






































illustrative.
























committed;




theoffence;














under:










family.







histrialbyrea