DO Retrieved - Asp

CANo.
10/15
AbhishekSinghVs.AnjanaRai
31.3.2015
Present:
Sh.AdityaVardhan,Ld.Counselfortheappellant.
RespondentinpersonwithSh.C.K.Sharma,Advocate.
Vakalatnamafiled.
Ld. Counsel for respondent is seeking time to file to reply.
TCRreceived.
Tocomeupon10.4.2015fordisposal.
(DINESHKUMARSHARMA)
ADDITIONALSESSIONSJUDGE
NEWDELHI/31.3.2015
CCNo.88/12
RCNo.1(A)/2012
CBIVs.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/31.3.2015
At2:00pm
Present:
A1PradeepKumarSinghonbail.
A2SunilKesharyexemptedfortoday.
A3RavinderSinghonbail.
Sh.SandeepSharma,Ld.CounselforA1,A2andA3.
PW13 Inspector Kailash Sahu ispresent, his further cross
examinationrecordedandheisdischarged.
PW14Sh.AnilKumarispresentanddischargedunexamined
sinceLd.PPhasdroppedthiswitnessvideseparatestatement.
Letcasenowbefixedfor 07.4.2015 for fixingscheduleof
evidence.
Ld.PPisdirectedtoindicatethewitnesseswhomCBItendto
examine.
(DINESHKUMARSHARMA)
SPECIALJUDGE(CBI05)
NEWDELHI/31.3.2015
CCNo.02/2014
RCNo.5(A)/2014
CBIVs.SunilKumar
D.O.D.25.3.2015&27.3.2015
31.3.2015
Present:
ConvictSunilKumarinpersonwithSh.PuneetAhluwalia,
Advocate.
Filetakenuptodayonapplicationmovedonbehalfofconvict
SunilKumarfordepositingthefine.FineofRs.25,000/deposited.
Earlierdatei.e.04.4.2015standscancelled.
FilebeconsignedtoRecordRoom.
(DINESHKUMARSHARMA)
SPECIALJUDGE(CBI05)
NEWDELHI/31.3.2015
CCNo.04/14
RCNo.2(E)/2013
CBIVs.P.E.Lyngdoh
31.3.2015
Present:
Sh.RanjeetSingh,Ld.ProxyCounselforSh.KailashPandey,
Ld.CouselforA4andA5.
Ld.ProxyCounselsubmitsthatthecopiesarecomplete.
None is present for A1 toA3. Ithas been informedthat
some official of STC had appeared yesterday and he had received the
copies.
Tocomeupon10.4.2015.
(DINESHKUMARSHARMA)
SPECIALJUDGE(CBI05)
NEWDELHI/31.3.2015
RCNo.DAI2013A0033
CBIVs.NeelamSehgal&others
31.3.2015
Present:
InspectorS.K.Khullar,InvestigatingOfficer.
FreshChargeSheetreceivedbywayofassignment. Itbe
checked.
Be listed on 16.4.2015 for consideration. Documentsbe
filedonthesaiddate.
(DINESHKUMARSHARMA)
SPECIALJUDGE(CBI05)
NEWDELHI/31.3.2015
CCNo.05/13
RCNo.BDI/2012/E/0001
CBIVs.M/sMahuaMediaPvt.Ltd.
31.3.2015
Present:
Sh.K.P.Singh,Ld.SeniorPPforCBI.
A1M/sMahuaMediaPvt.Ltd.isbeingrepresentedbyA2
P.K.Tewari.
A2P.K.TewariandA3AnandTewarionbailwithLd.
CounselSh.MadhavKhurana.
A4M/sSJATechnicalConsultantsPvt.Ltd.isbeing
representedbyA8KrishnaDasShah.
A8KrishnaDasShahinpersonwithLd.CounselSh.M.A.
Niyazi.
A5BasantGuptainpersonwithLd.CounselSh.Devender
Chaudhary.
A6Dr.SitaRamGuptainpersonwithLd.CounselSh.Sunil
Sethi.
A7RitaBablaniinpersonwithLd.CounselSh.RajeshBatra.
A9BrijBhushanSethiinpersonwithLd.CounselSh.Harish
Kohli.
A10RajeshKumarBhargava,A11SonaDebnathandA12
RajeshGuptainpersonwithLd.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.
(DINESHKUMARSHARMA)
SPECIALJUDGE(CBI05)
NEWDELHI/31.3.2015
CRNo.68/15
VMSSystemsLtd.&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)
ADDITIONALSESSIONSJUDGE
NEWDELHI/31.3.2015
CCNo.88/12CBIVs.PradeepKumarSinghetc.Pageno.1
of1
C.C.NO.88/12
CBIVs.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.1
of3
C.C.NO.88/12
etc.
31.3.2015
OnS.A.
PW11 : Statementof Sh.ArvindMukherjee (Recalledfor cross
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
processthecaseon file atoutend,beforesendingittothecompetent
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
of3
competentauthorityhadknowledgethatthereisnowitnessrelatedtothe
allegedtransactionofbribeinthepresentcase.Idonotrememberifthe
factthataccusedwasfoundinpossessionofaroundRs.30,000/atthe
timeofhisarrest,wasbroughttomyknowledgeornot.Ihadbeenshown
thestatementofthewitnessesandthesamewereperusedbymeandthe
competent authority. I do not remember if four witnesses, namely, Sh.
ShashiBodhMishra,Sh.AnilKumar,Sh.YogeshSharmaandSh.Vinod
KumarwerefromMinistryofHomeAffairs.Idonotknowifthefilerelating
toCambodiannationalpertaintoabovesaidfourpersons.Idonotknowif
thesepeople have made statementthat accused Pradeep KumarSingh
hadnoroletoplayinthefilerelatingtoCambodiannationalandaccused
PradeepKumarSinghhadneverapproachedthesepersonsatanypointof
timeinthisregard.IamnotawareifthefilerelatingtoCambodiannational
was dealt with by Section IV of MHA, whereas accused was posted 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,thesanctionwouldnothavebeengrantedinthis
case.IhavenotbroughtTransactionofbusinessrulestodayinthecourt
northesamewassuppliedbymetotheIO. Itiswrongtosuggestthat
graveprejudicehasbeencausedtotheaccusedforthereasonofaccord
ofsanctionagainsthimwithoutapplicationofmind.Itiswrongtosuggest
thatHon'bleHomeMinisterhad notaccordedanysanctionandnosuch
orderisavailableontherecord.ItiswrongtosuggestthatIamdeposing
falsely.
RO&AC
(DINESHKUMARSHARMA)
NEWDELHI/31.3.2015
CCNo.88/12CBIVs.P.K.Singhetc.(PW13)Pageno.1of
12
C.C.NO.88/12
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 have also seen Specimen Voice Recording Memo (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
12
separateblankCDsthroughanofficiallaptop.
Atthisstage,ayellowcolourenvelopEx.S1,producedfrom
Malkhana CBI, sealed with court seal is opened which is found to be
containinganotheryellowenvelop(opened),whichcontainsawhitecloth
pullanda Ex.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
pullanda Ex.PW9/F andaCD(S2)inaCDcover Ex.PW9/E. Thewhite
cloth pullanda bears my signatures at point B. The CD bears my
signaturesatpointB.
On20.01.2012,IobtainedspecimenvoiceofaccusedSunil
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 yellow envelop (opened), which contains a white
cloth
12
pullanda and a CD (S3) in a CD cover. 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. These documents were seized through aSeizure
Memo. Copy of the Seizure Memo is MarkA and the documents now
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 the FIR Ex.PW13/A was registered. No complainant number
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 was registered in the late night of 17.01.2012, after we had
concocted a false story against accused persons and in furtherance of
implicating accused persons falsely we registered this FIR Ex.PW13/A
falsely. It is further incorrect to suggest that FIR Ex.PW13/A was not
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
at 09:25 amand had also made computerized application 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.
When we entered the JaisalmerHouse atabout11:00am,
noneofushadtakengatepass,however,wehadshownouridentitycards
andhadenteredtheJaisalmerHouse.BesidesmeandwitnessSh.Arun
Kumar Gupta, none other accompanied us inside the Visa Facilitation
Centeratfirstfloor,atabout11:00am. ThewitnessSh.ArunKumar
Guptaremainedpresentwithmeatthattime. Whenthesourcemetme
insidetheofficeofVisaFacilitationCenter,thewitnessSh.ArunKumar
Guptawasneartomebutwasindiscretemanner. Thesourcetalkedto
meforabout12secondsandhefiguredouttheaccusedRavinderSingh
tome.IapproachedthesourcewhenIenteredtheVisaFacilitationCenter
asSPhadgiventhedetailsofthesourcetomebeforereachingthere.
Therewerearound2530people
12
availableattheplacewherethesourcemetme. Outof2530people,I
identifiedthesourcewithin2minutes. Itisincorrecttosuggestthatno
sourcewaspresentintheofficeofVisaFacilitationCenter. Thesource
remained with us in or around Visa Facilitation Center till 6:00 pm on
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 accused Pradeep Kumar Singh had not directed accused Ravinder
SinghtomeethimintheVisaFacilitationCenterafterlunch.
When accused RavinderSingh left the office of Ministry of
Home affairsat11:20 am,Ialong with witness Sh. Arun KumarGupta,
followedhimtilltheexitgate.IdonotknowastowhereaccusedRavinder
Singh proceeded further and by which mode he had proceeded further
after coming out of the MHA building. It is not in my knowledge 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
accused Ravinder Singh entering the gate of Jaisalmer House at about
3:00pm. IcannotsaywhetherwitnessSh.ArunKumarGuptahadalso
observedaccusedRavinderSinghcomingorenteringJaisalmerHouseat
3:00pm. Therewere34countersnearthegateatfirstfloor,wherethe
applicationsforvisarelatedserviceswerefilledupbytheofficialsofMHA.
Idonotrememberastoonwhichcounter,accusedRavinderSinghwent
forthepurposeofmakingcorrectionsinVisarelatedservicesapplication.I
donotknowthenameordesignationofthepersonwhowassittingatthe
counterwhereaccusedRavinderSinghvisitedafter3:00pm. Ihadnot
interrogatedtheofficialwhomadecorrectionsintheVisaApplicationForm
atthebehestofaccusedRavinderSinghafter3:00pmatanypointoftime.
The second application was procured by accused Ravinder Singh after
makingcorrectionsafter3:00pm.However,hehadmentionedthecorrect
addressoftheapplicantnamelyMs.NoeumSopheap.Idonotremember
astowhataddresswasprovidedafter3:00pmbyaccusedRavinderSingh.
I had gone through the passport of Ms. Noeum Sopheap. 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.
The application is bearing address of the applicant as BLK1, 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 had completed/ processed this
applicationduringlunchtime.
ItiswrongtosuggestthataccusedRavinderSinghhadnot
cometoJaisalmerHouseon17.01.2012atoraround3:00pm.Itisfurther
wrongtosuggestthatRavinderSinghdidnotmeetcoaccusedP.K.Singh
on 17.01.2012 at 3:00 pm or 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
Cambodian national fromthe ground floorwhere the photocopy counter
waslocated,whichwasownedbytheprivateperson. Ididnotrecorded
thestatementofthepersonwhohadphotocopiedthedocumentsafter3:00
pmontherequestoftheaccusedRavinderSingh,norIhadinterrogated
thatperson.Ihavenotshownthecounterofthephotocopyinthesiteplan
Ex.PW3/B.
ItiscorrectthatIhavenotshownthepositionofaccused
of12
RavinderSinghintheaforementionedSiteplan. Vol.Thissiteplanonly
pertainstothesittingarrangementoftheofficeofaccusedPradeepKumar
Singh. ItisincorrecttosuggestthataccusedRavinderSinghhadnot
madephotocopiesofhisdrivinglicenceandpassportoftheCambodian
national or that accused Ravinder Singh had not handed over the said
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 up my fault or that accused Ravinder Singh was not carrying his
driving licence on 17.01.2012 or at no point of time he has done the
photocopyofhisdrivinglicenceintheofficeofMHA. Itisincorrectto
suggestthatthereisnophotocopierinthe
of12
officeofMHAasstatedbyme.
Ido notrememberthetimewhenaccused RavinderSingh
madeacalltosomeoneandmadeaccusedPradeepKumarSinghtalkto
thatperson.However,theconversationonthephonetookplaceforabout
1or2minutes.IdonotrememberthatIhadobservedanysuchcallmade
inanydocumentpertainingtocalldetailscollectedbyme.Itisincorrectto
suggestthatnosuchcallwasmadebyaccusedRavinderSinghorthat
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
(DINESHKUMARSHARMA)
NEWDELHI/31.3.2015
7
C.C.NO.88/12
etc.
31.3.2015
OnS.A.
PW13:StatementofInspectorKailashSahu(tenderedforfurther
crossexaminationincontinuationoffurtherexaminationinchiefand
partcrossexaminationconductedbeforelunchsession.)
Atabout4:50pm,mypositionwasatVisaFacilitationCenter
whereasthepositionofSh.ArunKumarGuptawaswithInspectorSunil
Dutt, and other team members who were nearby Jaisalmer House and
werecominginsideandgoingoutsidetheJaisalmerHouse. Iinformed
InspectorSunilDuttprobablyonhismobilephone,thataccusedRavinder
SinghhasleftthepremisesofJaisalmerHouse.Icannotsaywhetherthey
themselves noticed accused Ravinder Singh coming inside and going
outsidetheJaisalmerHouseataround3:00pmand4:50pmrespectively.
ItisincorrecttosuggestthatInspectorSunilDuttwasnotpresentoutside
theJaisalmerHouseattherelevanttimeoraccusedRavinderKumarhad
notcomeoutsidetheJaisalmerHouseat4:50pm.Icannotsaywhether
aspertheCallDetailReportofInspectorSunilDutt,hehasnotreceived
anycallfrommycellphonenumberatabout4:50pm. Vol.Ihavenot
seentheCDRofInspectorSunilDutt.Itisincorrecttosuggestthatasper
theCDRofmobilephoneofInspectorSunil
7
Dutt, his location is notatCBI office even in the morning of 17.01.2012

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
apprehended by Inspector Sunil Dutt. At that time Inspector Sunil Dutt
informedmethathewasatConnaughtPlacearea.Idonotknowastoby
whichmodeandwithwhom,accusedRavinderSinghreachedConnaught
Place area. IdonotrememberifInspectorSunil Dutthad toldmethe
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
follow him. It isincorrecttosuggestthatInspectorSunil Dutthad not
informedmethataccusedSunilKesharyhasconfessedhisguiltandstated
thathehadhandedoverRs.15,000/toaccusedPradeepKumarSingh.It
isfurther
7
incorrecttosuggestthatIhadnottoldInspectorSunilDutttobringback
accusedRavinderSinghatVisaFacilitationCenteratJaisalmerHouse.It
iscorrectthatitisnotmentionedinRecoveryMemoEx.PW3/A,prepared
by me that source informed me about the transaction of bribe and that
InspectorSunilDuttfollowedorapprehendedaccusedRavinderSinghfrom
theareaofConnaughtPlace.Itisincorrecttosuggestthatthesefactsare
notmentionedthereinintheRecoveryMemobecausenosuchincident
had taken place and in order to make a false case, we had introduced
thesefactslateronbywayofimprovingourstory.
I had given instructions to Inspector Sunil Dutt to bring
accused Ravinder Singh at Jaisalmer House at about 05:15 pm. I
challenged accused Pradeep Kumar Singh at about 5:30 pm. When I
challengedaccusedPradeepKumarSingh,12personsatthegateofVisa
FacilitationCenterwerepresent,however,allofthemleftthehallwhenwe
challengedaccusedPradeepKumarSingh.Itisincorrecttosuggestthat
PradeepKumarSinghprotestedoverthefalsechallengeandspecifically
toldusthathehasnoconcernwithaccusedRavinderSingh.Itisincorrect
tosuggestthathewassearchedbywitnessSh.SunilKumarVaid,inthe
absenceofaccusedRavinderSingh.Wehadnotrecordedanydisclosure
statement of accused Ravinder Singh or Pradeep Kumar 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
notes recovered from the possession ofaccused Pradeep Kumar Singh
besidestheRs.15,000/. However,GCnotesofRs.1000/denomination
andRs.500/denominationwerethepartofthatamountrecoveredbeside
Rs.15,000/.Icannotsayastohowmanypocketswerethereinthepantof
accused Pradeep KumarSingh. Vol.The amount recovered otherwise
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. Itis
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.
7
IhadpreparedtheRecoveryMemoonmyOfficelaptop.Itis
correctthatIhavenotmentionedthisfactintheRecoveryMemo.Vol.I
hadtakentheprintoutofmemoinCBIOffice.
AtthetimeofthearrestofaccusedPradeepKumarSingh
andAccusedRavinderKumarSingh,Ihadtakenintopossessiontheitems
mentionedintheirPersonalSearchMemoincludingtheircellphones. I
hadkeptalltheitemswithmethereafter. Vol.Thoughthecellphones
weretakenintopossession,however,thesamewereswitchedofflaterin
theCBIOffice.Nooneusedthecellphoneoftheaccusedpersonsafter
theirseizurebyme.
Question:IputtoyouthatthecellphoneofaccusedRavinderSinghwas
inusetillabout11:pmof17.01.2012.Whathaveyoutosay?
Answer:Inmyknowledge,nobodyusedthesaidcellphone.
It is incorrect to suggest that accused Ravinder Singh was
apprehended at about 10:30 pm/ 11:00 pm, from New Delhi area from
where he wasbrought to the CBIoffice and he wasmade an accused
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.
ItiscorrectthatintheHallwhereaccusedPradeepKumar
Singh had his seat, other officers also used to sit. I did not seize 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
tovisitSpecialUnit. TherewasnoofficialcommunicationbetweenAnti
Corruption Branch and Special Unit prior to 18.01.2012 in regard to the
presentcase.TheCDwasgiventomeinsealedformbySpecialUnit.It
isincorrecttosuggestthatCDhasnoconnection,whatsoever,withthe
present accused persons. It is incorrect to suggest that this CD was
fabricatedincollusionwithSpecialUnittogeneratefalseevidenceagainst
theaccusedpersons.Ihad
7
nottakenspecimenvoiceofaccusedpersonson17.01.2012. Ihadnot
preparedcertificateu/s.65BofIndianEvidenceAct,inregardtotheCDof
specimenvoice. ItisincorrecttosuggestthatCDsS1toS3donot
containthespecimenvoicesofaccusedpersons.Itisincorrecttosuggest
thatIamdeposingfalsely.
RO&AC
(DINESHKUMARSHARMA)
NEWDELHI/31.3.2015
INTHECOURTOFDINESHKUMARSHARMA,SPECIALJUDGE,
CBI05,PATIALAHOUSECOURTS,NEWDELHI
CCNo.05/13
RCNo.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.DevenderChaudhary,Ld.CounselforaccusedBasantGupta.
ORDER
1.
VidethisorderIproposetodisposeofbailapplication
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 consortium of 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 funds disbursed by Punjab National Bank.
Certainlapseswerenoticedonthepartofbankofficialsduringthe
disbursal,suchasgenuinenessofsuppliesofequipmentswasnot
verified.
3.
Sh. Devender Chaudhary, Ld. Counsel for accused has
soughtbailprimarilyonthegroundthataccusedhasrootsinthe
Society.Ithasbeensubmittedthattheaccusedshallattendthetrial
regularlyandthereisnopossibilityofhisbeingrunningawayfrom
thecauseofjustice.
4.
Sh.K.P.Singh,Ld.PPforCBIsubmittedthataccusedBasant
Gupta washandling the account asDesk Officer,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
disbursed by Union Bank & Bank of Baroda was credited in the
Escrow A/c. of MMPL maintained with PNB from where Demand
Draftswereissuedinfavourofthesuppliercompanies.Beinglead
banker, these officers were required to handle this account more
carefully. In criminal conspiracy with the borrowers, they had not
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 conducted physical verification of Noida site at
predisbursement and postdisbursement stage. They also
recommendedandreleasedworkingcapitallimitstoMMPL.While
handlingtheA/c.,theyalsodidcertainomissionsincontraventionto
thebanksguidelinesandcirculars,whichcausedwrongfullossto
thebank.
5.
Section 439(1)of Criminal Procedure Code confers special
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,andcitedwithapprovalin Sanjay
Chandra Vs. 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
dictionary meaning of the expression "bail" denotes a
security for appearance of 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:
The basic rule mayperhaps be tersely put as
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
been on bail throughout in the Trial Court and he was
released after the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court,
thereisnothingtosuggestthathehasabusedthetrust
placedinhimbythecourt;hissocialcircumstancesalso
are not so unfavourable in the sense of his being a
desperatecharacterorunsocialelementwhoislikelyto
betraytheconfidencethattheCourtmayplaceinhimto
turnuptotakejusticeatthehandsoftheCourt. Heis
stated to be a young man of 27 years with 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
directionthatthepetitionerwillreporthimselfbeforethe
policestationonceeveryfortnight.
8.
It is settled preposition that overriding consideration
whileconsideringbailare:
i) thenatureandgravityofcircumstancesinwhichtheoffenceis
committed;
ii) the position and status of the accused with reference to the
victimandthewitnesses;
iii) thelikelihood,oftheaccusedfleeingfromjusticeorrepeating
theoffence;
iv) the likelihood of jeopardising his life being faced with 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
circumstances of the case. Superior Courts have time and again
demoted the detention during trial asa manon bailhas abetter
chancetoprepareorpresenthiscasethenoneincustody.
In MotiRam Vs. StateofM.P.,(1978)4SCC47,theApex
Court while discussing pretrial detention, interalia held as
under:
14.
Theconsequencesofpretrialdetentionare
grave. Defendantspresumedinnocentaresubjected
tothepsychologicalandphysicaldeprivationsofjail
life,usuallyundermoreonerousconditionsthanare
imposed on convicted defendants. The jailed
defendantloseshisjobifhehasoneandisprevented
from contributing 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
accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the
witnessesbeingtamperedwith,thelargerinterestsof
thepublicorStateandsimilarotherconsiderations.It
hasalsotobekeptinmindthatforthepurposesof
granting the bail the legislature has used the words
"reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the
evidence"whichmeansthecourtdealingwiththegrant
ofbailcanonlysatisfyit(sicitself)astowhetherthere
is a genuine case against the accused and 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
thateverymanisdeemedtobeinnocentuntilduly
triedanddulyfoundguilty.
Fromtheearliesttimes,itwasappreciatedthat
detentionincustodypendingcompletionoftrialcould
be a cause of great hardship. From time to time,
necessitydemandsthat some unconvicted persons
shouldbeheldincustodypendingtrialtosecuretheir
attendanceatthetrialbutinsuchcases,`necessity'is
theoperativetest.
Inthiscountry,itwouldbequitecontrarytothe
concept of personal liberty enshrined in the
Constitution that any person should be punished 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.
(DINESHKUMARSHARMA)
SPECIALJUDGE(CBI05)
NEWDELHI/31.3.2015
CCNo.05/13
Inthematterof:
State(CBI)
Vs.
etc.
31.3.2015
BAILAPPLICATIONOFACCUSEDBRIJBHUSHANSETHI
Appearances
Sh.HarishKohli,Ld.CounselforaccusedBrijBhushanSethi.
ORDER
1.
ofaccusedBrijBhushanSethifiledbyhisLd.Counsel.
2.

verified.
3.
Sh. Harish Kohli, Ld. Counsel for accused has sought 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 had not physically
verifiedindividualmachineryandplantandsubmittedhisreporton
thebasisofinvoicesprovidedbytherepresentationofthecompany,
whichinvestigationrevealedtobeforged.
5.
imposingrestraints.
6.

interaliaasunder:
"6.

7.
illustrative.
8.
committed;
theoffence;
9.

under:
14.
family.
10.

11.

theoperativetest.
alesson.
12.
13.
InthefactsandcircumstancesaccusedBrijBhushanSethiis
conditions:
authority;
Counsel;
sweartoanaffidavit.
of.
(DINESHKUMARSHARMA)
SPECIALJUDGE(CBI05)
NEWDELHI/31.3.2015
CCNo.05/13
Inthematterof:
State(CBI)
Vs.
etc.
31.3.2015
BAILAPPLICATIONOFACCUSEDKRISHNADASSHAH
Appearances
Sh.M.A.Niyazi,Ld.CounselforaccusedKrishnaDasShah.
ORDER
1.
ofaccusedKrishnaDasShahfiledbyhisLd.Counsel.
2.

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. Atoneplaceitisallegedthatthe
accused visited Kolkata site at the expense of the borrowers,
however,in the samebreath itisalleged thatreport issubmitted
withoutphysical verification oftheequipments/site. Ithas further
beensubmittedthatthereportoftheaccusedisnotconfirmationof
installation of equipments at the project sites but only opinions
regarding physical and financial progress under column No. 12.3
(Pageno.19)oftheReport. Ithasfurtherbeensubmittedthatin
support of furnishing the opinion by the accused, project model
preparedbySBICaps(whichisonrecord)wasaninputdocument
whichtalksveryhighprofileaboutthepromoters,theirsatisfactory
track records in terms of 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.PPforCBIsubmittedthatthere wasa
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.
5.

imposingrestraints.
6.

interaliaasunder:
"6.

7.
illustrative.
8.
committed;
theoffence;
9.

under:
14.
family.
10.


11.


theoperativetest.
alesson.
12.
13.
InthefactsandcircumstancesaccusedKrishnaDasShahis
conditions:
authority;
Counsel;
sweartoanaffidavit.
of.
(DINESHKUMARSHARMA)
SPECIALJUDGE(CBI05)
NEWDELHI/31.3.2015
CCNo.05/13
Inthematterof:
State(CBI)
Vs.
etc.
31.3.2015
BAILAPPLICATIONOFACCUSEDRAJESHBHARGAVA
Appearances
Sh.AmitSharma,Ld.CounselforaccusedRajeshBhargava.
ORDER
1.
ofaccusedRajeshBhargavafiledbyhisLd.Counsel.
2.

verified.
3.
Sh.AmitSharma, Ld.Counselforaccusedhassoughtbail
justice.
4.
Sh.K.P.Singh,Ld.PPforCBIsubmittedthataccusedRajesh
Kumar Bhargava in connivance with accused P.K. Tewari and

accusedAnandTewariknowinglyanddishonestlysignedtheforged
invoicesofM/sViaEarth FilmsPvt.Ltd.asauthorized signatory.
HissignaturesontheinvoicesofM/sViaEarthFilmsPvt.Ltd.are
confirmed by CFSL. Forged invoices signed by him caused
wrongfullosstothebankstothetuneofRs.16.45crores.
5.

imposingrestraints.
6.

interaliaasunder:
"6.

7.
illustrative.

8.
committed;
theoffence;
9.

under:
14.
family.
10.

11.

theoperativetest.

alesson.
12.
13.
In the facts and circumstances accused Rajesh Kumar
Bhargavaisadmittedtocourtbailonfurnishingpersonalbondinthe
sumofRs.50,000/withonesuretyinthelikeamountsubjecttothe
followingconditions:
authority;
Counsel;
sweartoanaffidavit.
of.
(DINESHKUMARSHARMA)
SPECIALJUDGE(CBI05)
NEWDELHI/31.3.2015
CCNo.05/13
Inthematterof:
State(CBI)
Vs.
etc.
31.3.2015
BAILAPPLICATIONOFACCUSEDRAJESHGUPTA
Appearances
Sh.AmitSharma,Ld.CounselforaccusedRajeshGupta.
ORDER
1.
ofaccusedRajeshGuptafiledbyhisLd.Counsel.
2.

verified.
3.
justice.
4.
Sh.K.P.Singh,Ld.PPforCBIsubmittedthataccusedRajesh
GuptainconnivancewithaccusedP.K.TewariandaccusedAnand
TewariknowinglyanddishonestlysignedtheforgedinvoicesofM/s
AmarjyotiVyapaarLtd. asauthorizedsignatory. Hissignatureson
theinvoicesofM/sAmarjyotiVyapaarLtd.areconfirmedbyCFSL.
Forgedinvoicessignedbyhimcausedwrongfullosstothebanksto
thetuneofRs.56.41crores.
5.

imposingrestraints.
6.

interaliaasunder:
"6.

7.
illustrative.

8.
committed;
theoffence;
9.

under:
14.
family.
10.

11.

theoperativetest.

alesson.
12.
13.
In the facts and circumstances accused Rajesh Gupta is
50,000/withonesuretyinthelikeamountsubjecttothefollowing
conditions:
authority;
Counsel;
sweartoanaffidavit.
of.
(DINESHKUMARSHARMA)
SPECIALJUDGE(CBI05)
NEWDELHI/31.3.2015
CCNo.05/13
Inthematterof:
State(CBI)
Vs.
etc.
31.3.2015
BAILAPPLICATIONOFACCUSEDRITABABLANI
Appearances
Sh.RajeshBatra,Ld.CounselforaccusedRitaBablani.
ORDER
1.
ofaccusedRitaBablanifiledbyhisLd.Counsel.
2.

verified.
3.
Sh.RajeshBatra, Ld.Counselforaccusedhassoughtbail
justice.
4.
Sh.K.P.Singh,Ld.PPforCBIsubmittedthataccusedRita
Bablani washandlingtheaccountasDeskOfficer,Dr.S.R.Gupta
BablaniwasoverallinchargeofthebranchasBranchHead.They

thebank.
5.

imposingrestraints.
6.

interaliaasunder:
"6.

7.
illustrative.
8.
committed;
theoffence;
9.

under:
14.
family.
10.


11.

theoperativetest.
alesson.
12.
13.
In the facts and circumstances accused Rita Bablani is
conditions:
authority;
Counsel;
sweartoanaffidavit.
of.
(DINESHKUMARSHARMA)
SPECIALJUDGE(CBI05)
NEWDELHI/31.3.2015
CCNo.05/13
Inthematterof:
State(CBI)
Vs.
etc.
31.3.2015
BAILAPPLICATIONOFACCUSEDSITARAMGUPTA
Appearances
Sh.SunilSethi,Ld.CounselforaccusedSitaRamGupta.
ORDER
1.
ofaccusedSitaRamGuptafiledbyhisLd.Counsel.
2.

verified.
3.
Sh. Sunil Sethi, Ld. Counsel for accused has sought bail
justice.
4.
Sh.K.P.Singh,Ld.PPforCBIsubmittedthataccusedBasant
Gupta washandling the account asDesk Officer,Dr.S.R. Gupta

BublaniwasoverallinchargeofthebranchasBranchHead.They

thebank.
5.

imposingrestraints.
6.

interaliaasunder:
"6.

7.
illustrative.
8.
committed;
theoffence;
9.

under:
14.
family.
10.


11.

theoperativetest.
alesson.
12.
13.
InthefactsandcircumstancesaccusedSitaRamGuptais
conditions:
authority;
Counsel;
sweartoanaffidavit.
of.
(DINESHKUMARSHARMA)
SPECIALJUDGE(CBI05)
NEWDELHI/31.3.2015
CCNo.05/13
Inthematterof:
State(CBI)
Vs.
etc.
31.3.2015
BAILAPPLICATIONOFACCUSEDSONADEBNATH
Appearances
Sh.AmitSharma,Ld.CounselforaccusedSonaDebnath.
ORDER
1.
ofaccusedSonaDebnathfiledbyhisLd.Counsel.
2.

verified.
3.
justice.
4.
Sh.K.P.Singh,Ld.PPforCBIsubmittedthataccusedSona
Debnath in connivance with accused P.K. Tewari and accused

AnandTewariknowinglyanddishonestlysignedtheforgedinvoices
of M/s Avitel Electronics Ltd. as authorized signatory. Her
signatures on the invoices of M/s Avitel Electronics Ltd. are
confirmedbyCFSL.Forgedinvoicessignedbyhercausedwrongful
losstothebankstothetuneofRs.84.98crores.
5.

imposingrestraints.
6.

interaliaasunder:
"6.

7.
illustrative.

8.
committed;
theoffence;
9.

under:
14.
family.
10.

11.

theoperativetest.

alesson.
12.
13.
In the facts and circumstances accused Sona Debnath is
50,000/withonesuretyinthelikeamountsubjecttothefollowing
conditions:
authority;
Counsel;
sweartoanaffidavit.
of.
(DINESHKUMARSHARMA)
SPECIALJUDGE(CBI05)
NEWDELHI/31.3.2015
CCNo.05/13
Inthematterof:
State(CBI)
Vs.
etc.
31.3.2015
Appearances
Sh. Madhav Khurana, Ld. Counsel for A2 P.K. Tewari and A3 Anand
Tewari.
ORDER
1.
VidethisorderIproposetodisposeofapplicationfor
cancellationofbailofA2P.K.TewariandA3AnandTewarimoved
by Sh. D.J. Bajpei, Inspectorof Police, CBI/BS &FC, New Delhi
dated30.7.2014.
2.
The CBI has submitted that while granting bail to accused
P.K.Tewari andaccused AnandTewari,followingconditionswere

imposedinadditiontootherconditions.
Accusedshalljointheinvestigationasandwhenrequired.
SinceitisstatedthatthreeotherFIRsofsimilarnatureare
underinvestigation,theaccusedwillnotleaveNCRwithout
intimationtotheIOandmayleaveNCRafterpermissionis
grantedbytheIOuponprovidinghiscontactnumberetc.
3.
CBI submitted that, however, during the course of
investigation, pursuant to the order of the Court dated 27.5.2014

regardingfurnishingofdetailsofpropertyownedbyA2P.K.Tewari
andA3AnandTewari,theeffortsweremadetocontacttheaccused
personsbypersonallyvisitingtheirresidence.Theeffortswerealso
made to contact them through source, sending messages and
contactovertheirmobilenumber,buttheaccusedpersonsdidnot
makethemselvesavailableforinquiry. Ithasbeensubmittedthat
conduct of accused P.K. Tewari and accused Anand Tewari is in
violationofbailconditionsimposedbytheCourtand,therefore,their
bailisliabletobecancelled.
4.
In reply to this application dated 20.10.2014, the accused
persons have submitted that the CBI has moved application

malafidely,withobliquemotives.IOhasnotdisclosedthedateson
whichhevisitedtheresidenceofaccusedpersons. CBIhasalso
intentionally concealed the mobile numbers on which the efforts
weremadetocontacttheaccusedpersons.Thedetailsofmessage
sent and calls made have also not been given. The accused
personsstatedthatnonoticeunderSection160Cr.P.Cof91Cr.P.C
wereserveduponthem.
AccusedP.K.TewariwasgrantedbailbytheLd.Predecessor
ofthisCourtunderSection167(2)Cr.P.Cvidedetailedorderdated
15.10.2012,similarly,accusedAnandTewariwasalsograntedbail
under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C vide detailed order dated 30.10.2012
subject to certain conditions including that accused persons shall

joininvestigationasandwhenrequired.
5.
Section439(2)ofCodeofCriminalProcedureconferspower
uponSession'sCourttocancelthebailandorderforaccusedtobe
arrested and commit him to custody. However, it is a settled
preposition thatthe jurisdictionofthe Courtwhile considering the
pleaforcancellationofbailisverylimited.Itisasettledpreposition
thatthepowertocancelthebailmustbeexercisedwithduecare
and circumspection. There must be cogent and overwhelming
reasons and circumstances which have necessitated that bail
granted should be cancelled and it should not be cancelled in
routinemanner.
Inthepresentcase,theCBIhasmadeaveryvaguepleathat
efforts were made to contact the accused persons. CBI did not
makeavailabledetailsofthevisittotheresidenceoftheaccused
persons.CBIforthereasonsbestknowntothemalsodidnotthink
itpropertofurnishthedetailsofmessageandcalls.Iconsiderthat
CBI has made a very casual and half hearted plea for
cancellation of bail. There are no cogent and overwhelming
circumstances which are required for cancellation of bail.
Hence,theapplicationforcancellationofbailofA2P.K.Tewari
andA3AnandTewariisdismissed.
(DINESHKUMARSHARMA)
SPECIALJUDGE(CBI05)
NEWDELHI/31.3.2015

DO Retrieved - Asp

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

DO Retrieved - Asp

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

CANo.

separate detailed order dictated and announced in the open court on

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

Dutt, his location is notatCBI office even in the morning of 17.01.2012

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

The case of prosecution is that accused Anand Tewari,

MMPL had obtained disbursement of the loans by submitting

Sh. Devender Chaudhary, Ld. Counsel for accused has

Gupta washandling the account asDesk Officer,Dr.S.R. Gupta

terms & conditions and dishonestly submitted legal compliance

Section 439(1)of Criminal Procedure Code confers special

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

The concept and philosophy of bail was discussed by the

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

"Bail" remains an undefined term in CrPC.

Nowhere else has the term been statutorily defined.

It is settled preposition that overriding consideration

It has repeatedly been held that personal liberty is

fundamental and can be circumscribed only by some process

The important principles to be considered while

The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be

circumstances which are peculiar to the accused,

thebailinteraliaheldin SanjayChandra vs. CentralBureauof

In the facts and circumstances accused Basant Gupta is

The case of prosecution is that accused Anand Tewari,

MMPL had obtained disbursement of the loans by submitting

Bhushan Sethi accepted the assignment and submitted cost

Section 439(1)of Criminal Procedure Code confers special

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

The concept and philosophy of bail was discussed by the

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

"Bail" remains an undefined term in CrPC.

Nowhere else has the term been statutorily defined.

It is settled preposition that overriding consideration

It has repeatedly been held that personal liberty is

fundamental and can be circumscribed only by some process

The important principles to be considered while

The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be

thebailinteraliaheldin SanjayChandra vs. CentralBureauof

The case of prosecution is that accused Anand Tewari,

MMPL had obtained disbursement of the loans by submitting

Sh.K.P. Singh, Ld.PPforCBIsubmittedthatthere wasa

Section 439(1)of Criminal Procedure Code confers special

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

The concept and philosophy of bail was discussed by the

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

"Bail" remains an undefined term in CrPC.

Nowhere else has the term been statutorily defined.

It is settled preposition that overriding consideration

It has repeatedly been held that personal liberty is

fundamental and can be circumscribed only by some process

The important principles to be considered while

The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be

"reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the

thebailinteraliaheldin SanjayChandra vs. CentralBureauof

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

The case of prosecution is that accused Anand Tewari,

MMPL had obtained disbursement of the loans by submitting

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

Section 439(1)of Criminal Procedure Code confers special

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

The concept and philosophy of bail was discussed by the

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