Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
MA/4677/2014
CAV JUDGMENT
================================================================
Appearance:
MR MIHIR THAKORE, SR.ADVOCATE with MS MANISHA NARSINGHANI
WITH M/S. MIHIR DESAI AND KALPESH N SHASTRI, ADVOCATE for the
Page 1 of 63
R/CR.MA/4677/2014
CAV JUDGMENT
Applicant(s) No. 1 - 2
MR MAHESH JETHMALANI, SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR WITH MR PK
JANI, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH MR AC CHOKSHI, for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
case of the
as under :
prosecution
may
be
Page 2 of 63
R/CR.MA/4677/2014
CAV JUDGMENT
R/CR.MA/4677/2014
CAV JUDGMENT
for
the
reconstruction
of
the
houses
to
the
memorandum
was
submitted
by
15
Page 4 of 63
R/CR.MA/4677/2014
CAV JUDGMENT
Combat
is
magazine
owned
by
the
Page 5 of 63
R/CR.MA/4677/2014
CAV JUDGMENT
with
the
present
FIR,
the
applicants
first
Page 6 of 63
R/CR.MA/4677/2014
CAV JUDGMENT
Page 7 of 63
R/CR.MA/4677/2014
II.
CAV JUDGMENT
submits
that
his
clients
are
Journalists
by
submitted
that
the
allegations
of
R/CR.MA/4677/2014
CAV JUDGMENT
(2)
Siddharam
Satlingappa
Page 9 of 63
Mhetre
v.
State
of
R/CR.MA/4677/2014
Maharashtra
CAV JUDGMENT
State :
On the other hand, this application has been vehemently
opposed by Mr.Mahesh Jethmalani, the learned Special Public
Prosecutor appearing for the State. Mr.Jethmalani submitted
that no case worth the name is made out for anticipatory bail.
He submits that the allegations are very serious. He submits
that huge amounts have been converted by the applicants for
their personal use through their credit cards. The amount
which was received by way of donations was meant for the
poor and the needy i.e. the riot victims. By creating sympathy
for the riot affected victims, the applicants were successful in
obtaining huge amount by way of donations. The documentary
evidence on record would suggest that they have not been
able to satisfactorily account for the same. Huge amounts were
transferred from the Trusts' accounts to the personal accounts
of the husband and the wife, which are 10 in number. He has
submitted that there are huge cash withdrawals with no
corresponding vouchers in that regard. He submitted that huge
amounts have been paid towards their personal expenditure
on credit cards. Mr.Jethmalani pointed out that for years
together the accounts were not audited so far as the two
Trusts are concerned and then all of a sudden one fine day
they got the accounts of past couple of years audited through
Page 10 of 63
R/CR.MA/4677/2014
CAV JUDGMENT
air-tickets,
etc.
Mr.Jethmalani
pointed
out
that
have
restrained
the
Auditors
from
furnishing
the
Page 11 of 63
R/CR.MA/4677/2014
CAV JUDGMENT
R/CR.MA/4677/2014
CAV JUDGMENT
Page 13 of 63
R/CR.MA/4677/2014
CAV JUDGMENT
R/CR.MA/4677/2014
CAV JUDGMENT
Donation as
per Audit
Report
34,02,674
16,96,503
10,000
7,12,500
73,779
58,95,456
Donation as per
bank
statement
1,31,00,850
40,91,187
1,07,55,091
55,71,424
28,40,070
3,63,58,622
Amount
Difference
96,98,176
23,94,684
1,07,45,091
48,58,924
27,66,,291
3,04,63,166
Page 15 of 63
R/CR.MA/4677/2014
CAV JUDGMENT
23,18,426
43,52,540
46,14,986
25,60,704
71,03,630
47,67,630
63,49,086
47,71,812
95,93,414
3,25,85,572
+ 1,31,251
+ 167525
+
9,042
+ 2,10,233
- 5,00,392
- 5,66,150
- 20,71,602
- 3,56,640
- 14,53,878
61,87,302
Page 16 of 63
R/CR.MA/4677/2014
CAV JUDGMENT
FCRA A/c *
In Rs.
HRD A/c**
In Rs.
Teesta Setalvad
Page 17 of 63
SB-Gen A/c***
In Rs.
R/CR.MA/4677/2014
CAV JUDGMENT
8,59,435
4,97,762
No information
provided by C.A.
No information
provided by C.A.
FCRA A/c *
In Rs.
HRD A/c**
In Rs.
a) Amount as 19,18,676
per bank
account
statement
7,58,320
34,743
27,11,538
b) Amount as 13,87,650
per statement
provided by
D.M.Sathe,
auditor of
Sabrang Trust
No
information
provided by
C.A.
No
information
provided by
C.A.
13,87,650
Javed Anand
HRD A/c**
In Rs.
a) Amount as
per bank
account
statement
22,54,766
19,91,870
45,02,848
Page 18 of 63
87,49,484
R/CR.MA/4677/2014
b) Amount as
per statement
provided by
D.M.Sathe,
auditor of
Sabrang Trust
28,35,920
CAV JUDGMENT
No
information
provided by
C.A.
No
information
provided by
C.A.
28,35,920
FCRA A/c *
In Rs.
HRD A/c**
In Rs.
SB-Gen
A/c***
In Rs.
Total
a) Amount as 12,75,000
per bank
account
statement
11,02,000
18,93,925
42,70,000
b) Amount as 10,00,000
per statement
provided by
D.M.Sathe,
auditor of
Sabrang Trust
No
information
provided by
C.A.
No
information
provided by
C.A.
10,00,000
Cash
Withdrawal
R/CR.MA/4677/2014
CAV JUDGMENT
R/CR.MA/4677/2014
CAV JUDGMENT
Page 21 of 63
R/CR.MA/4677/2014
CAV JUDGMENT
Foreign
Donation
Credited
Local
Donation
Received
Total Amount
In Rs.
In Rs.
1,35,10,311
NIL
1,35,10,311
NIL
3,25,46,613
3,25,46,613
NIL
15,630
15,630
In Rs.
SABRANG TRUST:
A) FCRA A/c
No.369102010802885
with UBI
Period 10.04.07 to
06.01.14
B) SB-General A/c No
369102010037953 with
UBI
Period
01.01.01
03.04.14
to
C)
HRD
A/c
No
369102010806781 with
UBI.
Period
23.02.11
03.04.14
to
Total
4,60,72,554
1,02,05,312
NIL
1,02,05,312
NIL
4,11,97,234
4,11,97,234
B) SB A/c No .
014104000105705 with
IDBI
Period 26.02.2004 to
18.12.2013
Total
5,14,02,546
Grand TOTAL
9,74,75,100
Page 22 of 63
R/CR.MA/4677/2014
CAV JUDGMENT
(Rs 9.74
Crores)
Note: With the emergence of these two new accounts,
the total donation in Sabrang Trust has gone to Rs 4.61
crores as against Rs 1.35 Crores as referred to earlier.
These facts were never disclosed before any Court by the
the Petitioners in their Petitions and pleadings.
It is humbly submitted that on the Analysis of the
Personal Account of Teesta Setalvad and Javed Anand
following facts have emerged.
(A) Account Analysis Teesta Setalvad:
(I) SB A/c No.369102010003883 with UBI, Mumbai:
Account Opening Date: 01/01/2001
Deposit From 01.01.2001 to 31.12.2001
NIL
Deposit From 01.01.2002 to 31.12.2002
NIL
Deposit from 16.03.2003 to 17.01.2014 Rs 1,53,70,519
(II) SB A/c No.014104000142595 with IDBI Bank, Mumbai:
Account Opening Date: 30/04/2005
Page 23 of 63
R/CR.MA/4677/2014
CAV JUDGMENT
Page 24 of 63
R/CR.MA/4677/2014
CAV JUDGMENT
R/CR.MA/4677/2014
CAV JUDGMENT
Page 26 of 63
R/CR.MA/4677/2014
CAV JUDGMENT
on record as per details given below:A) The Petitioners in Criminal Writ Petition No 173/2014
filed in the Bombay High Court on 15.01.2014 for
quashing of present FIR No 1/2014, at page no 11, para
(G) of the Petition stated that:
As required under the Bombay Public Trust Act,
1950 the Accounts of Sabrang Trust are audited
annually by Chartered Accountants and are filed
with the Charity Commissioner, Mumbai along with
the Auditors Report every year. Similarly, as
required under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950
the Accounts of CJP are audited annually by
Chartered Accountants and are filed with the
Charity Commissioner, Mumbai along with the
Auditors Report every year
Copies of relevant pages of CWP No-173/2014 are
annexed herewith as ANNEXURE C.
B) The Petitioners in Criminal Writ Petition No 293/2014
filed in the Bombay High Court on 24.01.2014 for deceasing the accounts of Sabrang Trust & CJP etc, at page
no Q115 para (h) of the Petition stated that:
As required under the Bombay Public Trust Act,
1950 the Accounts of CJP are audited annually by
the Chartered Accountants and arefiled with the
Charity Commissioner, Mumbai along with the
Auditors Report every year. Similarly, as required
under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 the
Accounts of Sabrang Trust are audited annually by
the Chartered Accountants and are filed with the
Charity Commissioner, Mumbai, along with the
Auditors Report every year
Copies of relevant pages of CWP No-293/2014 are
annexed herewith as ANNEXURE D.
C)
The Petitioners in Misc Criminal Application No
761/2014 filed before the Sessions Court, Ahmedabad on
21.02.2014, in Affidavit-in-rejoinder of the Applicants
dated 10.03.2014 for grant of anticipatory bail, at page
no 4 para (6) of the Affidavit-in-rejoinder stated that:
Both the trusts have been regularly filing their
Page 27 of 63
R/CR.MA/4677/2014
CAV JUDGMENT
R/CR.MA/4677/2014
CAV JUDGMENT
R/CR.MA/4677/2014
CAV JUDGMENT
say
that
the
delay
Page 30 of 63
occurred
due
to
our
R/CR.MA/4677/2014
CAV JUDGMENT
R/CR.MA/4677/2014
CAV JUDGMENT
R/CR.MA/4677/2014
CAV JUDGMENT
FIR
was
registered
wherein
serious
allegations
of
Page 33 of 63
R/CR.MA/4677/2014
CAV JUDGMENT
CJP, a total
vouchers
and/or
cheques
details
to
prove
their
statement.
(f) Upon scrutiny of the saving accounts Nos.014104000142595 &
014104000142601 of the petitioner nos. 1 & 2 with the IDBI,
Mumbai, it was noticed that both the accounts were opened on
30.04.2005. The FCRA permission from MHA for CJP and
Sabrang Trust was granted in November, 2007. Proposal to
purchase the Gulbarg Society was mooted by petitioner no.1
orally in December, 2007 and formally in January, 2008,
Resolution was passed by the society accepting her proposal in
June, 2008 and thereafter the advertisements commenced and
monies started pouring in. Further no substantial income of any
Page 34 of 63
R/CR.MA/4677/2014
CAV JUDGMENT
CJP are
accounts
of
CJP,
Sabrang
Trust
and
Sabrang
Communications.
evidence
received
from
the
Charity
Page 35 of 63
R/CR.MA/4677/2014
CAV JUDGMENT
received
in
the
Sabrang
Trust
and
be
further
scrutinized
and
examined
wherein
The
petitioners
have
sought
to
dismiss
cash
expenses
of
purely
personal
nature.
Online
R/CR.MA/4677/2014
CAV JUDGMENT
massive campaign
in
2008
onwards
for
R/CR.MA/4677/2014
CAV JUDGMENT
The
matter
involves
commission
of
grave
R/CR.MA/4677/2014
CAV JUDGMENT
Page 39 of 63
R/CR.MA/4677/2014
CAV JUDGMENT
Page 40 of 63
R/CR.MA/4677/2014
CAV JUDGMENT
Page 41 of 63
R/CR.MA/4677/2014
CAV JUDGMENT
that
information
regarding
the
commission
of
R/CR.MA/4677/2014
CAV JUDGMENT
Page 43 of 63
R/CR.MA/4677/2014
CAV JUDGMENT
R/CR.MA/4677/2014
CAV JUDGMENT
Page 45 of 63
R/CR.MA/4677/2014
CAV JUDGMENT
to
That,
R/CR.MA/4677/2014
CAV JUDGMENT
Page 47 of 63
R/CR.MA/4677/2014
CAV JUDGMENT
R/CR.MA/4677/2014
CAV JUDGMENT
Page 49 of 63
R/CR.MA/4677/2014
CAV JUDGMENT
Page 50 of 63
R/CR.MA/4677/2014
CAV JUDGMENT
this, the nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact
role of the accused is also necessary to be looked into after
evaluating the entire material against the accused. In short,
what has been laid down by the Supreme Court in Siddharam
Satlingappa Mhetre (supra) is that the arrest should be a last
option and should be restricted to those exceptional cases
where arresting the accused is imperative. I may add here that
custodial interrogation is one of the most important factors
which the Court should consider while considering the plea of
the accused for anticipatory bail.
My attention has been drawn by Mr.Thakore, the learned
senior advocate appearing for the applicants, to a very recent
pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of Hema
Mishra v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2014)4 SCC 453,
wherein His Lordship Dr.A.K.Sikri, J. in a concurring but a
separate
judgment
made
the
following
observations
in
paragraphs 30 and 31 :
30. It is pertinent to explain that there may be imminent
need to grant protection against pre-arrest. The object of
this provision is to relieve a person from being disgraced
by trumped up charges so that liberty of the subject is
not put in jeopardy on frivolous grounds at the instance
of the unscrupulous or irresponsible persons who may be
in charge of the prosecution. An order of anticipatory bail
does not in any way, directly or indirectly, take away for
the police their right to investigate into charges made or
to be made against the person released on bail.
31. The purposes for which the provisions of anticipatory
bail are made are quite obvious. One of the purposes of
the arrest is that the accused should be available to the
investigating machinery for further investigation and
questioning whenever he is required. Another purpose is
that the trial should not be jeopardized and for this
purpose the restrictions on the movements of the
Page 51 of 63
R/CR.MA/4677/2014
CAV JUDGMENT
malafides must be
specifically
be proved
alleged
and
required
to
by the
Page 52 of 63
R/CR.MA/4677/2014
CAV JUDGMENT
Page 53 of 63
R/CR.MA/4677/2014
CAV JUDGMENT
Page 54 of 63
R/CR.MA/4677/2014
CAV JUDGMENT
advantage
in
disinterring
many
useful
Page 55 of 63
R/CR.MA/4677/2014
CAV JUDGMENT
started
to
involve themselves
in
such
acts.
The
R/CR.MA/4677/2014
CAV JUDGMENT
SCC 424 and (iv) 1978 (1) SCC 579 to contend that in law
an accused person could be arrested and if arrested, is
entitled to bail unless detention in needed in public
interest.
4. Shri Arun Jaitley and Sri Gopal Subramaniam, learned
Senior Advocates for the respondents, brought to our
notice that there were several special features in this
case which clearly indicate that retaining the petitioner in
custody till the investigation is over is absolutely
necessary and is in public interest, which far outweighs
the interest of the petitioner.
5. We do not wish to enter into any detailed discussion
on these legal aspects raised by the learned counsel for
the respondents as this Court in the several decision
referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner has
explained the scope of the provisions of Articles 20(2)
and 21 of the Constitution and Section 486 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure and their inter-relationship. We may
only state in considering a petition for grant of bail
necessarily if public interest requires detention of citizen
in custody for purposes of investigation could be
considered and rejected as otherwise there could be
hurdles in the investigation even resulting in tempering
of evidence. This very aspect has been borne in mind by
the High Court . On the facts and in the circumstances of
the case, we do not think there is any god reason to
interfere with the order made by the High Court in
refusing bail at this state of the proceedings. The special
leave petition is, therefore, dismissed.
Page 57 of 63
R/CR.MA/4677/2014
CAV JUDGMENT
malafides,
some
times,
the
Court
may
find
some
exaggeration, but that does not mean that the entire case put
forward by the prosecution is false or baseless.
Page 58 of 63
R/CR.MA/4677/2014
CAV JUDGMENT
Page 59 of 63
R/CR.MA/4677/2014
CAV JUDGMENT
registration,
genuine
board
composition,
Page 60 of 63
R/CR.MA/4677/2014
CAV JUDGMENT
Page 61 of 63
R/CR.MA/4677/2014
CAV JUDGMENT
officer;
(d) not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and
not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet
to be collected by the police;
(e) at the time of execution of bond, furnish the
address to the Investigating Officer and the Court
concerned and shall not change their residence till the
final disposal of the case till further orders;
(f) not leave India without the permission of the Court,
and if having passport, shall deposit the same before
the trial Court within a week; and
(g) it would be open to the Investigating Officer to file
an application for remand if he considers it just and
proper and the learned Magistrate would decide the
same on merits;
Despite this order, it would be open for the Investigating
Agency to apply to the competent Magistrate for police
remand of the applicants. The applicants shall remain present
before the learned Magistrate on the first date of hearing of
such application and on all subsequent occasions as may be
directed by the learned Magistrate. This would be sufficient to
treat the accused in the judicial custody for the purpose of
entertaining application of the prosecution for police remand.
This is, however, without prejudice to the rights of the accused
to seek stay against an order of remand if, ultimately, granted,
and the powers of the learned Magistrate to consider such a
request in accordance with law.
It is clarified that the applicants, even if, remanded to the
police custody, upon completion of such period of police
remand, shall be set free immediately, subject to the other
conditions of this anticipatory bail order.
Page 62 of 63
R/CR.MA/4677/2014
CAV JUDGMENT
(J.B.PARDIWALA, J.)
(J.B.PARDIWALA, J.)
MOIN
Page 63 of 63