C.B.I Vs V.Vijay Sai Reddy

Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 729 OF 2013 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5946 of 2012

Central Bureau of Investigation .... Appellant(s)

Versus

V. Vijay Sai Reddy .... Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

P. Sathasivam, J.

1) Leave granted.

2) This appeal is directed against the final judgment and

order dated 13.06.2012 passed by the High Court of

Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal

Petition No. 4387 of 2012, whereby the High Court dismissed

the petition filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation

(CBI)-the appellant herein seeking cancellation of bail

granted to the respondent herein.

1

Page 2

Brief facts:

3) On the orders of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in

Writ Petition Nos. 794, 6604 and 6979 of 2011 dated

10.08.2011, the CBI, Hyderabad, on 17.08.2011, registered a

case being R.C. No. 19(A)/2011-CBI-Hyderabad dated

17.05.2011 under Sections 120-B read with Sections 409,

420 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘IPC’)

and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) and (d) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short “the PC Act”)

against Y.S. Jaganmohan Reddy (A-1), Member of Parliament

and 73 others.

(b) V. Vijay Sai Reddy-the respondent herein was named as

an accused at Sl. No. 2 in the FIR dated 17.08.2011 (after

the chargesheet was framed, he was arrayed as A-2 and

hereinafter, he will be referred to as A-2). The respondent

herein was the founder Director of M/s Jagathi Publications

and was the Financial Advisor for the group of companies of

Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy (A-1).

2

Page 3

(c) He was arrested on 02.01.2012 and was in police

custody from 04.01.2012 to 09.01.2012 and again from

11.01.2012 to 17.01.2012. On 27.01.2012, he filed an

application for grant of regular bail under Section 437 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘the Code’) before

the Court of the Special Judge for CBI Cases at Hyderabad.

The Special Judge, by order dated 21.03.2012, dismissed his

application for bail.

(d) During investigation, it was revealed that M/s Jagathi

Publications Pvt. Ltd. was originally incorporated as a

private limited company on 14.11.2006 and later converted

into a public limited company on 12.01.2009. At the

relevant time, the respondent herein was the founder

Director of the Company and Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy (A-1)

was designated as the Authorised Signatory to operate the

Bank accounts of the Company. He was appointed as a

Director and Chairman with effect from 21.06.2007. It is

alleged that A-1 floated M/s Jagathi Publications Pvt. Ltd.

with an objective of conducting media business with the ill-

gotten wealth. Most of the shareholders were alleged to be

3

Page 4

the benamis of Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy (A-1). Further, as a

quid pro quo to these investments, the benefits were

received by various investors including the

companies/individuals from the decisions of the State

Government in allotment of lands for Special Economic

Zones (SEZs), contracts for irrigation projects, special

relaxations/permissions for real estate ventures, mines etc.

It is further revealed that Y.S. Jaganmohan Reddy (A-1)

laundered the bribe money by routing it through various

individuals and companies and getting investments made by

them in his companies at a high premium.

(e) After investigation, on 31.03.2012, the CBI filed first

charge sheet against A-1 to A-13 including the respondent

herein under Section 120-B read with Sections 409, 420 and

477-A of the IPC and Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1)

(c) and (d) of the PC Act in the Court of Special Judge for CBI

Cases, Hyderabad. On 02.04.2012, A-2 filed another

application for grant of bail before the Special Judge. By

order dated 13.04.2012, the Special Judge granted bail to A-

2.

4

Page 5

(f) Being aggrieved by the order dated 13.04.2012, the CBI

filed Criminal Petition No. 3712 of 2012 before the High

Court. The High Court, by order dated 20.04.2012, set aside

the order dated 13.04.2012 and remanded the matter to the

Court of Special Judge to consider the case of A-2 afresh. In

the meantime, the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases,

Hyderabad took cognizance of the charge sheet dated

31.03.2012 against A-1 to A-13 which was numbered as CC

No. 8 of 2012. On 30.04.2012, after hearing both the sides

afresh in Criminal Misc. Petition No. 715 of 2012 for grant of

bail, the very same Special Judge, who passed the earlier

order dated 13.04.2012, granted bail to A-2.

(g) Aggrieved by the order dated 30.04.2012, the CBI filed

Criminal Petition No. 4387 of 2012 before the High Court for

cancellation of bail granted to A-2. In the meantime, the CBI

filed third chargesheet with respect to the investment made

by M/s Ramky Group of Companies. On 29.05.2012 and

30.05.2012, the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases took

cognizance of second and third chargesheet(s) which were

numbered as CC Nos. 9 and 10 of 2012 respectively.

5

Page 6

(h) The High Court, by order dated 13.06.2012, dismissed

the petition filed by the CBI.

(i) Being aggrieved by the order of the High Court, the CBI-

the appellant herein has preferred this appeal by way of

special leave.

4) Heard Mr. Ashok Bhan, learned senior counsel for the

appellant herein and Mr. Raju Ramachandran, learned senior

counsel for the respondent herein.

5) It is useful to refer the order dated 10.08.2011 passed

by the High Court ordering for CBI investigation wherein, in

para 51, it is stated thus:

“51. Prima facie, it emerges from the record forming part of the writ petitions including pleadings of the parties that from May, 2004 onwards, respondent No. 52 floated number of companies wherein quid pro quo investments have been made out of the benefits received by the investors/beneficiaries from the decisions of the State Government in various forms like SEZs, irrigation contracts, relaxation/permission for real estate ventures, mines etc. besides payment of huge premium amounts paid in the shares and invested in the companies by such beneficiaries and the money so paid is nothing but corrupt money attracting Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The investigation by the Income Tax authorities with respect to assessment orders of M/s Jagathi Publications for the year 2008-09 shows huge unexplained cash credit. Similarly, huge escalated face value of shares to the extent of 35 times also was not accepted by the Income Tax authorities and respondent No. 52 is directly or indirectly connected with some of the companies which are showing phenomenal growth and these facts make it

6

Page 7

necessary to ascertain the role of individuals/firms/public servants in the group companies of respondent No. 52.”

6) Based on the above directions, the CBI filed a charge

sheet on 17.08.2011, initiated investigation and filed several

charge-sheets and, according to learned senior counsel for

the CBI, three more charge-sheets are yet to be filed. It is

highlighted by learned senior counsel for the CBI that the

present appellant (A-2) participated in the conspiracy and

according to him, he is a key conspirator. He also

highlighted that by threatening many businessmen, he made

them close associates of Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy (A-1). He

also highlighted that the present appellant intimidated many

persons for investments in the concerns belonging to A-1.

Finally, he submitted that by branding him as Y.S. Jagan

Mohan Reddy’s (A-1) man, he collected huge money by way

of getting shares in the companies flouted by A-1. In

addition to the same, Mr. Ashok Bhan submitted that out of

eight charge-sheets, three charge-sheets are yet to be filed

for which the CBI requires interrogation and collection of

materials through him for which his bail has to be cancelled.

7

Page 8

By taking us through the reasoning of the Special Court for

grant of bail and the affirmation order of the High Court,

learned senior counsel for the CBI submitted that both the

courts took note of irrelevant considerations, hence, both the

orders are liable to be set aside.

7) As against the above contentions, Mr. Raju

Ramachandran, learned senior counsel for the respondent,

after taking us through the averments in the FIR, allegations

in the charge-sheet(s) filed so far submitted that there is no

material to show that the appellant has gained anything

financially in the alleged transactions. He also pointed out

that no investments were made in Jagathi Publications

during the period when he was the Director. He further

submitted that the State Government itself had passed

various Government Orders to protect the Ministers and

Secretaries who alleged to have been involved on the

ground that everything was done in the course of normal

business of the Government. When such is the position,

according to him, the appellant being a Chartered

Accountant, without any financial gain, the Special Judge

8

Page 9

was justified in granting him the bail. He also pointed out

that even when the appellant was out, five charge-sheets

have been filed and there is no impediment in finalizing the

remaining three charge-sheets and he is willing to cooperate

with the Agency by fulfilling all the conditions imposed by

the Special Court and the High Court.

8) We have considered the rival contentions and perused

all the relevant materials relied on by both the sides.

9) Let us consider the contentions put-forth by learned

senior counsel for the CBI. It is settled by a series of

decisions that if irrelevant materials have been taken into

account or relevant materials have been kept out of

consideration, the order granting bail to the accused cannot

be sustained. In the same way, if there is specific allegation

by the prosecution that the accused in question was a party

to the criminal conspiracy, neither the Special Court nor the

High Court is justified in granting bail to the said person.

These principles have been reiterated vide State of U.P.

through CBI vs. Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21,

para 31, Dinesh M.N. (S.P.) vs. State of Gujarat, (2008) 5

9

Page 10

SCC 66, para 27, Narendra K. Amin (Dr.) vs. State of

Gujarat and Another, (2008) 13 SCC 584 para 27, State

of Maharashtra and Others vs. Dhanendra Shriram

Bhurle and Others, (2009) 11 SCC 541, para 8, Central

Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad vs. Subramani

Gopalakrishnan and Another, (2011) 5 SCC 296, para 25.

10) Keeping those principles in mind, let us consider the

role played by the present respondent – V. Vijay Sai Reddy

(A-2) as projected by the CBI. In the first charge-sheet, it is

alleged as under:

i) V. Vijay Sai Reddy (A-2) was the founder Director of M/s

Jagathi Publications Pvt. Ltd. (A-12) and is the Financial

Advisor for Group Companies of Y.S. Jagan Mohan

Reddy (A-1).

ii) V. Vijay Sai Reddy (A-2) in conspiracy with Y.S. Jagan

Mohan Reddy (A-1) to fix the premium of M/s Jagathi

Publications Pvt. Ltd. at a high rate, provided false and

exaggerated information to M/s Deloitte Touche

Tohmatsu India Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Jagadisan & Co. and

got evaluated M/s Jagathi Publications Pvt. Ltd.. In

10

Page 11

furtherance of the said conspiracy, V. Vijay Sai Reddy

(A-2) unilaterally fixed the premium of M/s Jagathi

Publications at Rs. 350/- per share for the sole purpose

of soliciting huge amounts as investments.

iii) V. Vijay Sai Reddy (A-2) and Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy

(A-1) were fully aware of their factual financial position

before starting the media company which takes 5 to 6

years for break even to claim profits. In spite of this

fact, V. Vijay Sai Reddy (A-2) prevailed over M/s Deloitte

Touche Tohmatsu India Pvt. Ltd. by providing false

inputs to exaggeratedly evaluate the fiscal status of M/s

Jagathi Publications Pvt. Ltd. and also to ante-date the

valuation report to suit the stealthy requirements of the

company. Thus, Vijaya Sai Reddy (A-2) was

instrumental in soliciting the premium @ Rs. 350/- of

M/s Jagathi Publications Pvt. Ltd. without any basis.

iv) V. Vijay Sai Reddy (A-2) in furtherance of the criminal

conspiracy, played a vital role in soliciting investments

in the form of bribes as a quid pro quo from the

individuals related to the MD of M/s Aurobindo Pharma

11

Page 12

Ltd. and the companies M/s Hetero Group Companies

(A-4) and M/s Trident Life Sciences Ltd. (A-5).

v) By the above mentioned overt acts V. Vijay Sai Reddy

(A-2) in furtherance of criminal conspiracy with

remaining accused, has committed the offences under

Section 120-B read with Sections 409, 420 and 468 IPC

and thereby facilitated Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy (A-1) to

reap undue benefit in the form of investments in his

company from the beneficiaries mentioned above as a

quid pro quo.

11) It is brought to our notice that M/s Jagathi Publications

Private Limited was incorporated on 14.11.2006 as a Private

Limited Company and was converted into a Public Limited

Company on 12.01.2009. M/s Jagathi Publications Private

Limited represented by its the then Directors, Y.S. Jagan

Mohan Reddy (A-1) and V. Vijay Sai Reddy (A-2) solicited

investments from the general public although it was a

private limited company in violation of the provisions of the

Companies Act, 1956. It is contended by the CBI that the

main intention of M/s Jagathi Publications Private Limited

12

Page 13

represented by the then Diectors A-1 and A-2 was to woo

innocent investors to buy shares at high premiums by

concealing the material facts. They cited several instances

in the charge sheet.

12) In the second charge-sheet dated 23.04.2012, Y.S.

Jagan Mohan Reddy (A-1), V. Vijay Sai Reddy (A-2) and M/s

Jagathi Publications Private Limited are the main accused for

the offences under Section 120-B read with Sections 420,

468 and 471 IPC and Section 9 of the PC Act. The third

charge sheet was filed on 07.05.2012 regarding the

investigation conducted in connection with the investments

made by M/s Ramky Pharma City (I) Ltd. in M/s Jagathi

Publications Private Limited. According to the CBI,

investigation revealed that Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy (A-1) in

conspiracy with V. Vijay Sai Reddy (A-2) ensured causing of

wrongful gain to M/s RPCIL represented by Ayodhya Rami

Reddy (A-4) in the matter of reducing the green belt area

from 250 mtrs. to 50 mtrs. by prevailing upon his father late

Dr. Y.S. Rajasekhara Reddy, the then Chief Minister to take

a decision to that effect during the meeting held on

13

Page 14

23.11.2005. Based on the said decision, G. Venkat Ram

Reddy (A-5), the then Vice Chairman, VUDA accorded

approval to the layout plan of M/s RPCIL (A-6) with reduced

green belt area confining it to 50 mtrs. in contravention to

the decision dated 20.06.2005 and the G.O. No. 345 dated

30.06.2006 notifying the VUDA Master Plan 2021. In this

way, A-6 obtained wrongful gain of 914 acres of land inside

the Pharma City and by selling the land after dividing it into

plots, A-6 obtained a wrongful gain of Rs. 133.74 crores. It is

further pointed out that as a Financial Advisor and Founder

Director of M/s Jagathi Publications Private Limited, the

respondent herein played a very active role and as such he

cannot be absolved himself from the conspiratorial role

played by him in the affairs of M/s Jagathi Publications

Private Limited and is liable for all the irregularities.

13) It is pointed out by the CBI that investigation is under

progress regarding the transactions relating to Sandur Power

Company which involved many foreign transactions and the

present respondent V.Vijay Sai Reddy (A-2) was the main

person who dealt with all the foreign transactions for which

14

Page 15

evidence is available. It is also highlighted that V.Vijay Sai

Reddy (A-2) has played a main role in pumping crores of

money to M/s Jagathi Publications Private Limited through

several companies like Artillegence Bio-Innovations Ltd., Bay

Inland Finance Pvt. Ltd., Bhaskar Fund Management Pvt.

Ltd., and other individuals based in Kolkata and Mumbai.

Likewise, VANPIC’s grant of mining lease and permits to

several group of companies, the investigation is under

progress and custodial interrogation from the appellant is

required.

14) Mr. Ashok Bhan, learned senior counsel has pointed out

that the Special Judge erroneously observed that the

investigation has reached to a conclusion and based on such

a wrong assumption enlarged him on bail.

15) According to the CBI, the investigation is still in

progress in other separate and distinct offences. He also

pointed out that the said conclusion is totally contrary to the

record. By pointing out various facts and figures, he

asserted that A-2 is an active member of the criminal

conspiracy and releasing him at the stage of investigation

15

Page 16

would result in miscarriage of justice as the role played by

him in the conspiracy is serious and grave in nature. The

main grievance of the CBI is that when there was sufficient

evidence on record and investigation is yet to be completed

in many matters, grant of bail would defeat the proper

investigation in the case.

16) Though we are not expressing any definite opinion

about those allegations and it is for the trial Court to find out

the acceptability or otherwise in the full fledged trial, we are

of the view that in order to complete the investigation in

respect of three more charge sheets, the presence of

respondent (A-2) is required and cannot be ignored by

treating him as Chartered Accountant only.

17) As mentioned earlier, five charge sheets have been

filed so far and three more charge sheets are in the final

stages and are yet to be filed. At the time of arguments,

learned senior counsel for the CBI has brought to our notice

that the last of the charge has been filed in the Dalmia

Cements Ltd. issue on 08.04.2013 which is on the file of the

Special Judge for the CBI Cases for taking cognizance. We

16

Page 17

have already noted the stand of the CBI insofar as the

respondent herein is concerned, his relationship with the

main accused Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy (A-1) his interest in

M/s Jagathi Publications Private Limited etc. It is also seen

and highlighted that respondent A-2 was engaged in

Financial Consultant Company, namely M/s Deloitte Touche

Tehmatsu India Private Limited and according to the CBI, he

directed this Company to fudge and exaggerate fiscal status

of M/s Jagathi Publications Private Limited. It is their claim

that it is A-2 who was instrumental in soliciting the premium

at Rs. 350 per share of M/s Jagathi publications Private

Limited without any basis for actual share of Rs. 10 per

share. It is pointed out that on the basis of this false rating

of Jagathi Publications Private Limited of which A-2 was the

Director, many more companies and individuals were made

to invest their money by threat, intimidation, cheating and

inducement. It is the specific stand of the CBI that these

ratings were falsely projected by A-2.

18) It is also brought to our notice that investigation

relating to M/s Sandur Power Company is in progress which

17

Page 18

involves investigation in foreign countries in which Y.S.

Jaganmohan Reddy (A-1) was the Director. As per the

investigation, respondent herein (A-2) was the main person,

who facilitated formation of M/s Sandur Power Company Ltd..

There is also allegation that Sandur Power Company

received huge amounts from two Mauritius based Companies

and the source of those monies is being investigated

speedily and efforts to trace the source are being done

expeditiously. It is also brought to our notice that Letter of

Rogatories have been sent to six foreign countries and they

have furnished the status of LRs.

19) It is also the claim of the CBI that investigation is under

progress regarding granting of mining lease of limestone to

the extent of 2037.52 acres by the Government of Andhra

Pradesh to Raghuram Cements. It is highlighted that during

the period under review, the CBI has collected 400

documents running into thousands of pages from various

departments/banks and so far about 40 persons have been

examined.

18

Page 19

20) It is also highlighted that the investigation disclosed

that respondent A-2 was nominated as a part time non-

executive Director of Oriental Bank of Commerce by the

Ministry of Finance vide notification dated 14.12.2006 based

on the recommendation of late Dr. Y.S. Rajasekhara Reddy,

the then Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh and father of A-1.

It is the assertion of the CBI that respondent A-2 was not

only the direct beneficiary of the post of Director in a

Nationalised Bank but was also a key conspirator and

facilitated for fiddling with public money of the said bank. As

the Director of the bank, he also facilitated a loan of Rs. 200

crores to A-1 without any security and was also appointed as

a Member of Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams.

21) It is pointed out that so far 110 witnesses have been

examined and as many as 1382 documents running into

several thousands of pages have been collected in respect of

investment through paper companies based in Kolkata and

Mumbai, popularly known as suit case companies. Even in

the case of Indus Projects and Lepakshi Knowledge Hub Pvt.

19

Page 20

Ltd., according to the CBI, the role of respondent A-2 is being

ascertained.

22) Finally, it is pointed out that the role of respondent (A-

2) in matters of Raghuram Cements and Sandur Power are

yet to be completed, hence, the presence of respondent

herein (A-2), who is outside the judicial custody would

definitely hamper the smooth investigation and blunt the

due process of law through his deceptive and subtle

manipulations to influence, intimidate and threaten the

witnesses.

23) Though the CBI has annexed certain documents in

support of the above claim, we are not looking into the same

at this stage and if the charge sheet(s) is filed with reference

to the same, it is for the Special Court to consider merit and

demerits of the claim of the prosecution.

24) As pointed out by learned senior counsel for the CBI in

para 25 of the impugned judgment, the High Court did not

agree with the observation of the Special Judge that the

investigation has reached to a conclusion. In fact, the High

Court has concluded that the above finding is incorrect. In

20

Page 21

para 26 also, the High Court appreciated and accepted the

stand of the CBI that it has been making investigation with

regard to other distinct offences that are alleged in the FIR.

Interestingly, the High Court has also not accepted the

another reasoning of the Special Court for granting bail,

namely, that the main accused A-1 and other beneficiaries

have not been arrested by the investigating agency. In other

words, the High Court has rightly concluded that the

circumstance of not arresting the other accused itself cannot

be a ground to grant bail. However, after finding fault with

certain reasoning and conclusion of the Special Court in

granting bail, the High Court has observed that the CBI has

not placed any material before the Special Court to

substantiate their stand. The Special Judge has also noted

that when respondent herein (A-2) was released on bail on

13.04.2012 and again surrendered before the Court on

23.04.2012, there is no allegation against him that during

this period, he tried to run away from the investigating

agency or made any attempt to influence the witnesses. In

this regard, learned senior counsel for the CBI has brought to

21

Page 22

our notice the statement of one Gopalakrishnan Murali dated

20.06.2012. In his statement, in the penultimate paragraph,

it is noted that on receipt of notice under Section 91 of the

Code from CBI on 13.06.2012 the said deponent immediately

contacted V. Vijay Sai Reddy (A-2) for his instructions.

According to him, A-2 directed him not to part with any

document/information to CBI and directed to approach the

High Court of Andhra Pradesh through their legal advisors.

Admittedly, he had not brought any information as required

under the notice dated 13.06.2012 on the advise of the

respondent herein (A-2). As rightly pointed out, there is no

need to go to High Court to get specific direction for each

and every thing. When the Investigating Officer is in need

of certain documents/information for verification with

reference to the investigation it is but proper to place all the

materials under Section 91 of the Code. Likewise, further

statement of one Shri Sanjay S. Mitra dated 07.12.2012 was

pressed into service. When the attention was drawn to the

said person pointing out that his replies are intended to

protect directly the people involved in the above

22

Page 23

transactions including his Managing Director Puneet Dalmia

and Vijay Sai Reddy (A-2), his answer was that he is an

employee working with Dalmia for salary and he has

indications from his management and indirectly from Vijay

Sai Reddy (A-2) about not revealing the above transactions

and he also informed the things having reservation about his

future. These are a few samples pointed out by the counsel

for the CBI.

25) Another relevant aspect as pointed out by learned

senior counsel for the CBI that bail can be cancelled when

lower court granted bail on irrelevant considerations. The

High Court accepted the said proposition and observed that

“though there appears to be some force in the contention of

Shri Kesava Rao, learned standing counsel for the CBI that

the Special Judge has taken into consideration certain factors

which appear to be not relevant such as not arresting A-1

and certain other observations of learned Special Judge,

such as investigation has been completed appear to be

incorrect.” Unfortunately, after arriving such conclusion,

particularly, criticizing the Special Judge, the High Court on

23

Page 24

an erroneous ground concluded that “it cannot be said that

they are totally irrelevant circumstances, therefore, on that

ground, I feel that the bail granted to the respondent cannot

be cancelled”.

26) Finally, though it is claimed that respondent herein (A-

2) being only a C.A. had rendered his professional advise, in

the light of the various serious allegations against him, his

nexus with the main accused A-1, contacts with many

investors all over India prima facie it cannot be claimed that

he acted only as a C.A. and nothing more. It is the assertion

of the CBI that the respondent herein (A-2) is the brain

behind the alleged economic offence of huge magnitude.

The said assertion, in the light of the materials relied on

before the Special Court and the High Court and placed in

the course of argument before this Court, cannot be ignored

lightly.

27) It is true that the Special Judge while granting bail

imposed certain conditions and the High Court has also

added some more additional conditions, however, taking

note of few instances in which how the respondent has

24

Page 25

acted, it cannot be possible for the investigating agency to

collect the remaining materials for the remaining three

charge sheets to be filed. In such circumstances, we are

satisfied firstly the Special Court took irrelevant materials for

consideration for grant of bail and secondly, the High Court

having arrived definite conclusion that several findings of

Special court are unacceptable or irrelevant but ultimately

affirmed the very same order of the special Judge granting

bail.

28) While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the

nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support

thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will

entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which

are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of

securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable

apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the

larger interests of the public/State and other similar

considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the

purpose of granting bail, the Legislature has used the words

"reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence"

25

Page 26

which means the Court dealing with the grant of bail can

only satisfy it as to whether there is a genuine case against

the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce

prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not

expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing

the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

29) We have highlighted the above aspects to show that

the High Court has mistakenly taken into account the

irrelevant materials and kept out the relevant materials,

which had to be considered for the grant of bail.

30) Taking note of the fact that cancellation of bail

necessarily involves the review of a decision already made,

it should always be exercised very sparingly by the court of

law. 31) In the light of the above discussion, we are of the

view that the special Judge committed an error in granting

bail and the same was erroneously affirmed by the High

Court.

32) Taking note of all the aspects discussed above, without

expressing any opinion on the merits, we set aside both the

orders of the Special Judge and the High Court granting bail

26

Page 27

to A-2 and allow the appeal filed by the CBI with a direction

to complete all the investigation relating to the remaining

three charge sheets and file appropriate report before the

trial Court within a period of four months from today.

Thereafter, the respondent herein is free to renew his prayer

for bail before the trial Court and if any such petition is filed,

the trial Court is free to consider the prayer for bail

independently on its own merits without being influenced by

the present appeal. During the course of hearing, it is

brought to our notice that the marriage of the daughter of

the respondent has been fixed for 26.05.2013. Taking note

of the said aspect, we direct the respondent herein to

surrender on or before 5-6-2013 before the Special Court for

being sent to the custody.

33) The appeal is allowed.

...…………….…………………………J. (P. SATHASIVAM)

.…....…………………………………J. (M. YUSUF EQBAL )

NEW DELHI; MAY 09, 2013.

27

C.B.I Vs V.VIJAY SAI REDDY