REPORTABLE    

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  348   OF 2012 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 8995 of 2011)

Dipak Shubhashchandra Mehta                     ....  Appellant(s)

Versus

C.B.I. & Anr.              .... Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

P.Sathasivam,J.

1) Leave granted.

2) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order  

dated  20.10.2011  passed  by  the  High  Court  of  Gujarat  at  

Ahmedabad in Criminal Misc. Application No. 14224 of 2011  

whereby the  High Court rejected the application for  regular  

bail filed by the appellant herein.    

1

3) Brief facts:

(a) The appellant herein is the Joint Managing Director of  

Vishal  Exports  Overseas  Ltd.,  a  Public  Limited  Company  

(hereinafter referred to as “the Company”) incorporated in the  

year 1988 as a partnership firm which was converted into a  

Public  Limited  Company  in  1995  under  the  provisions  of  

Chapter  IX of  the  Companies  Act,  1956.   The  Company  is  

engaged  in  the  business  of  import  and  export  of  diverse  

commodities  including  agricultural  products  and  diamonds.  

According to the appellant, the Company was a Government of  

India recognized Four Star Trading House with a turnover of  

about Rs.3935 crores in the year 2005-2006.  It is also his  

claim  that  the  Company  has  been  accredited  with  many  

awards  and  was  ranked  1st in  India  under  the  merchant  

exporter category in the years 2003-04 and 2005-06.   

(b) Due  to  non-payment  of  advances  from various  banks,  

complaints  were  filed  against  the  Company  as  well  as  the  

promoters and Directors. The FIRs filed by various banks are:

(i) In the year 2008, Punjab National Bank lodged an FIR  

with CBI bearing No.  RC-I(E)/2008/BSFC, Mumbai.   In the  

2

said  case,  only  Pradip  Shubhashchandra  Mehta  (A-3)  was  

arrested.  Remand was not granted by the Special CBI Court  

at Ahmedabad and bail was granted within a span of one day.  

The appellant herein was not arrested in this case and formal  

bail was granted to him on filing charge sheet.   

(ii) In the year 2009, UCO Bank lodged an FIR with the CBI  

bearing  No.  RC  12(E)/2009  in  which  charge  sheet  was  

submitted on 15.11.2010 and the appellant was arrested on  

1.11.2010  and  was  released  on  temporary  bail  for  various  

durations.

(iii)  Vijaya Bank had also lodged an FIR with the CBI bearing  

No. RC11(E)/2008 and submitted charge sheet on 26.06.2010  

in which the appellant herein was arrested after filing of the  

charge sheet, he was also granted bail.

(iv) State Bank of Hyderabad has also lodged an FIR and the  

same  is  under  investigation.   No  charge  sheet  has  been  

submitted so far.

(c) State Bank of India and 17 other banks filed O.A. No. 11  

of 2008 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Ahmedabad  

seeking recovery of  amount  given by  way of  credit  facilities  

3

under consortium arrangement to the Company.  Ad-interim  

orders have been passed on 28.02.2008 to secure the interest  

of the banks and to ensure that the litigation does not become  

meaningless by the time final order is passed.

(d) On 19.01.2010, the appellant herein filed Civil Suit No.  

145 of  2010 seeking damages to the  tune of  Rs.786 crores  

against the informant Andhra Bank and other banks before  

the  Ahmedabad City  Civil  Court.   The Andhra Bank,  Zonal  

Office, Mumbai  also lodged an FIR  on 19.01.2010 which was  

registered by the CBI BS & FC/MUM bearing No. 1(E)/2010  

for  commission  of  offences  punishable  under  Sections  406,  

420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal  

Code, 1860 (in short ‘IPC’).   In connection with the said FIR,  

the  appellant  herein  was  arrested  on  31.03.2010  and  

remanded to police custody till 03.04.2010 and thereafter in  

the judicial custody.   The appellant was granted temporary  

bail on three occasions on medical ground.  After completing  

the  investigation,  the  CBI  submitted  charge  sheet  on  

10.06.2010 in which the  appellant  was arrayed as accused  

No.4.     

4

(e) On 31.08.2010, the appellant preferred an application for  

bail after charge sheet was filed before the Special Court vide  

Criminal Misc. Application No. 141 of 2010 but the same was  

dismissed.

(f) Being  aggrieved  by  the  said  order,  the  appellant  filed  

Criminal Misc. Application No. 11415 of 2010 before the High  

Court for regular bail  in connection with the FIR lodged by  

Andhra  Bank,  Zonal  Office  Mumbai  bearing  No.  1(E)/2010  

which was dismissed by the High Court on 19.10.2010.

(g) After  investigation  in  RC.12(E)/2009  lodged  by  UCO  

Bank  charge  sheet  was  submitted  on  15.11.2010  and  the  

appellant was arrested on 01.11.2010 and he was released on  

temporary bail.   

(h) Against the order dated 19.10.2010 passed by the High  

Court, the appellant filed S.L.P.(Crl.)No. 83 of 2011 before this  

Court and the same was disposed of on 29.04.2011 directing  

the special Court to take all endeavour for an early completion  

of the trial.

(i) As  there  was no  progress  in  the  trial,  the  CBI  filed  a  

supplementary charge sheet on 02.02.2011 which was served  

5

on  all  the  accused  including  the  appellant  herein  only  on  

02.08.2011.  Since  the  trial  did  not  come  to  an  end,  the  

appellant filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 195 of 2011 for  

regular  bail  before  the  Special  Court.  In  the  meanwhile,  

Additional  Chief  Judicial  Magistrate,  vide  order  dated  

15.09.2011 in Misc. Application No. 17/2011 in Spl. Case No.  

03/2010  granted  temporary  bail  up  to  20.10.2011  to  the  

appellant herein on the ground of medical exigencies. Again on  

19.10.2011,  considering  the  health  of  the  appellant,  the  

Special  Court  extended  the  temporary  bail  till  30.11.2011.  

Vide  order  dated  27.09.2011,  Special  Court  rejected  the  

application for regular bail filed by the appellant herein.

(j) The appellant filed an application being Criminal Misc.  

Application  No.  14224  of  2011  before  the  High  Court  for  

regular  bail  but  the  same  was  rejected.   Again  the  said  

application, the appellant has filed the above appeal by way of  

special leave before this Court.

4) Heard Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, learned senior counsel for the  

appellant  and  Mr.  P.P.  Malhotra,  learned  Addl.  Solicitor  

General for the CBI.  

6

5) The only point for consideration in this appeal is whether  

the appellant herein has made out a case for regular bail and  

whether  the  High  Court  is  justified  in  dismissing  his  bail  

application.  

6) We are conscious of the fact that this Court should not  

ordinarily, save in exceptional cases, interfere with the orders  

granting/refusing  bail  by  the  High  Court.   We  are  also  

provided  with  the  facts  and  figures  about  the  appellant’s  

involvement  in  similar  other  proceedings.   In  the  case  on  

hand,  out  of  four  accused,  A-1  is  the  Company  and  the  

appellant-A-4 is the Joint Managing Director of the Company.  

It is not in dispute that A-2 and A-3 were granted bail by the  

High Court on medical grounds.  Mr. Rohtagi, learned senior  

counsel  for  the  appellant  apart  from  highlighting  that  the  

appellant-A-4 is entitled for regular bail  and also submitted  

that  he  be  considered  on  medical  grounds  because  of  his  

various ailments as certified by leading doctors including the  

Medical Officer, Central Jail Dispensary, Ahmedabad.   

7) Insofar  as  the  merits  of  the  claim  of  the  appellant  is  

considered,  it  is  useful  to  refer  the  recent  decision  of  this  

7

Court  in  Sanjay  Chandra vs.  Central  Bureau  of  

Investigation, 2012 (1) SCC 40.  Since in this decision, all the  

earlier  decisions of  this  Court  relating  to  grant  of  bail  in  a  

matter of this nature have been considered, we feel that no  

other earlier decisions need be referred to.  Those appeals were  

directed  against  the  common  judgment  and  order  of  the  

learned  Single  Judge  of  the  High  Court  of  Delhi  dated  

23.05.2001 in Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI by which the learned  

Single  Judge refused to grant  bail  to  the  appellant-accused  

therein.   The  allegations  against  those  accused  appellants  

were that they entered into a criminal conspiracy for providing  

telecom services to otherwise ineligible companies and by their  

conduct,  the  Department  of  Telecommunications  (DoT)  

suffered huge loss.  The learned Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi  

rejected  the  bail  applications  filed  by  them by  order  dated  

20.04.2011.  The appellants therein moved applications before  

the  High Court  under  Section 439 of  the  Code of  Criminal  

Procedure, 1973.  The same came to be rejected by the learned  

Single Judge by his order dated 23.05.2011.  Aggrieved by the  

same, the appellants approached this Court by filing appeals.  

8

8) After considering the entire materials, arguments of the  

various senior counsel as well as the Addl. Solicitor General  

for the CBI and marshalling the earlier decisions of this Court  

and after finding that the trial may take considerable time and  

the appellants who are in jail  have  to remain in jail  longer  

than the period of detention had they been convicted and also  

keeping in mind the fact that the accused are charged with  

economic  offences of  huge magnitude,  ultimately  this  Court  

granted  bail  to  all  the  appellants  by  imposing  severe  

conditions.   

9) It is also relevant to refer the order passed by this Court  

on 29.04.2011 in SLP (Criminal) No. 83 of 2011 filed by the  

appellant herein earlier.  This Court directed as under:

“We have considered the rival contentions and also perused  all the relevant documents.  In view of the fact that the other  two accused, namely, A-2 and A-3 were released mainly on  the ground of illness and old age and of the assurance by the  learned  Additional  Solicitor  General  that  the  trial  will  be  completed  within  a  period  of  three  months,  we  are  not  inclined to accede to the request of the petitioner.  However,  we make it clear that for any reason if the trial continues  beyond the period assured by the learned Additional Solicitor  General, the petitioner is free to move bail application before  the  Special  Court.   In  such  event  the  Special  Court  is  permitted to consider it  in accordance with law.  We also  direct the Special Court to take all endeavour for an early  completion of the trial as suggested by the learned Additional  Solicitor General.

9

10) Though  on  the  last  date  of  hearing,  learned  Addl.  

Solicitor  General  assured  this  Court  that  the  trial  will  be  

completed within a period of three months, in view of various  

reasons  considering  the  magnitude  of  the  issues  involved,  

frequent absence of the accused at the hearing dates due to  

various reasons including health grounds, filing of petition for  

discharge and also the pressure of work on the Special Court  

hearing among other important matters, the fact remains that  

the trial could not be concluded.  In fact, it is pointed out that  

though  the  prosecution  has  submitted  charge  sheet  the  

charges  have  not  been  framed  due  to  various  reasons  as  

mentioned above.  

11) We have already pointed out that insofar as the present  

case is concerned among the four accused A-1 is a Company,  

A-2 and A-3 were granted bail on medical grounds.  According  

to  the  present  appellant  i.e  A-4,  he  was  arrested  on  

31.03.2010 by the CBI and was remanded to police custody  

for three days.  Since 03.04.2010, he is in the judicial custody  

at Sabarmati Central Jail, Ahmedabad and on 15.09.2011, he  

was  granted  interim  bail  up  to  20.10.2011  and  again  on  

10

19.10.2011,  considering  his  health  conditions,  the  Special  

Court  extended his  interim bail  till  30.11.2011.   As  stated  

earlier, the CBI has completed the investigation and submitted  

the charge sheet on 10.06.2010 and the offences alleged in the  

charge sheet are of the years 2006 and 2007.  

12) Mr.  Rohtagi,  learned  senior  counsel,  after  taking  us  

through various proceedings by the Civil Court as well as DRT  

under  SARFESI  Act  submitted  that  entire  properties  of  the  

appellant  and  their  companies/firms  were  attached  by  the  

orders  of  the  Court/Tribunal.   According  to  him,  before  

entering into transaction with the banks, all those properties  

have been mortgaged and as on date, the appellant cannot do  

anything with those properties without the permission of the  

Court/Tribunal.   In such circumstances,  he  submitted that  

there will not be any difficulty in realising the money payable  

to  the  banks,  if  any.   In  addition  to  the  above  factual  

information,  it  was pointed out  that  after  the  order  of  this  

Court, on 29.04.2011 there is no progress in the trial.  It is  

also  pointed  out  that  the  trial  has  not  even  commenced  

inasmuch as a supplementary charge sheet has been served  

11

upon the appellant herein only on 02.08.2011.  It is further  

pointed out that the charge has not been framed till this date.  

It  is  also  brought  to  our  notice  that  prosecution has relied  

upon 286 documents and listed 47 witnesses in the charge  

sheets filed by it.  

13) In addition  to  the  above  information,  Mr.  Rohtagi  has  

also pointed out that at the time of arrest of the appellant on  

31.03.2010, he was taken to the hospital and was diagnosed  

for  hypertension  and  acidity.   According  to  him,  no  other  

ailment  was  noted  by  the  hospital  in  the  discharge  card.  

While  so,  when  he  was  in  custody  since  31.03.2010,  the  

appellant has suffered 40 per cent permanent partial disability  

in  his  left  arm  as  a  result  of  surgery  for  abnormal  bone  

protrusion.   It  is  also  highlighted  that  on  account  of  

uncontrolled  high  blood  pressure  while  in  custody  the  

appellant has suffered 30 per cent blindness in his right eye  

and has undergone a surgery for vitreous hemorrhage.  It is  

further pointed out that the hemorrhage having re-occurred,  

the doctors have advised a second surgery to save his eyes.  

However,  according  to  him,  the  said  surgery  could  not  be  

12

performed due to continuing uncontrolled high blood pressure  

and resultant recurring bleeding in the vessel even after first  

surgery.  It is also pointed out that after passing of order by  

this Court on 29.04.2011, the appellant while in custody has  

contracted  obstructive  jaundice  requiring  long  intensive  

treatment.   As  a  result  of  such  obstructive  jaundice,  the  

appellant is also unable to undergo other required surgeries.  

Learned senior counsel has also pointed out that the appellant  

is now suffering from further disability of loss of hearing which  

can  be  corrected  only  through  surgery.   In  support  of  the  

above claim, various certificates issued by doctors of private  

hospitals have been placed on record.  In addition to the same,  

Mr. Rohtagi by drawing our attention to the certificate dated  

07.08.2011 issued by the Central Prison Hospital, Sabarmati,  

Ahmedabad stated that even according to the Medical officer of  

the  Central  Jail  Dispensary,  the  appellant  is  suffering from  

various ailments as mentioned in the certificate which reads  

as under:

13

“OUT NO. ACJD/346/2011 CENTRAL PRISON HOSPITAL SABARMATI, AHMEDABAD Date : 07.08.2011

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that Mr. Dipak Shubhash Mehta is an  under  trial  prisoner  of  Central  Jail,  Ahmedabad  with  prisoner NO. 4077.  

He  complains  of  continuous  precordial  chest  pain  dullache  like  heaviness  in  chest,  Gabharaman,  giddiness,  chronic Rt. Hypochondriach pain in abdomen, bleeding P/R.  dimness of vision Rt. Eye vision deviation of Rt. Eye outward  since 1 -1/2 years.

Patient is a known case of uncontrolled blood pressure  since 4 years, chronic obstructive jaundice since 6 months  and fissure in anno with piles.  Patient was sent to eye dept.  Civil Hospital Ahmedabad on 02.02.2011, seen by Dr. K.P.S.  (Ophthalmic  Surgical  Unit)  and  diagnosed  as  Rt.  Eye  glaucoma,  3rd nerve  palsy  in  Rt.  Eye  with  vitreous  hemorrhage,  macular  degeneration  and  percentage  of  blindness is 30%.  CT report suggests Fatty replacement of  belly and distal tendinous insertion of superectus muscle on  Rt. Side.  

On  25.03.2011,  patient  was  operated  for  vitreous  hemorrhage in private hospital even though, on 17.06.2011  eye  examination  found fresh  vitreous  hemorrhage  present  due to uncontrolled blood pressure and chronic obstructive  jaundice.  

On  27.09.2010,  patient  was  sent  to  U.M.  Mehta  Institute  of  Cardiology  &  Research  Centre  for  further  investigation and treatment where his Echocardiography was  done  and  report  suggests  Normal  LV  side  and  fair  LV  function reduced LV compliance and 55%.  

On 08.01.2011, patient was operated for tardy ulner  nerve paresis.  It forearm and neurolysis done of Lt. ulner  nerve and advised regular physiotherapy.  Dated 26.02.2011  CDMO, Govt. General Hospital, Sola certified that patient is  

14

a  case  of  physically  disabled  and  has  40%  permanent  physical impairment in relation to his Lt. upper limb.  

Patient  needs  to  be  under  continuous  observation  under treating doctor and follow up.  He is advised to avoid  physical  and  mental  stress  to  prevent  any  serious  complications.  

This certificate is issued on the basis of available case  records at Central Jail Dispensary.

Date: 07.08.2011 Place: Ahmedabad Central Jail  

Sd/- Medical Officer Central Jail Dispensary, Ahmedabad.”

14) Apart from the above certificate, the very same Medical  

Officer,  Central  Jail  Dispensary,  Ahmedabad  has  issued  

another  Certificate  on  08.09.2011.   In  the  said  Certificate,  

after reiterating the very same complaints finally he concluded  

“he  needs  treatment  from  the  Specialist,  Super  Specialist,  

Cardiologist and Gastroenterologist & Ophthalmologist for his  

multiple problems”.   

15) The above information by a Medical Officer of the Central  

Jail  Dispensary,  Ahmedabad  supports  the  claim  of  the  

appellant  about  his  health  condition.   No  doubt,  Mr.  P.P.  

Malhotra,  learned ASG by drawing  our  attention to  various  

details  from the counter  affidavit  filed on behalf  of  the CBI  

15

submitted  that  in  view  of  magnitude  of  the  financial  

involvement by the appellant with the nationalised banks, it is  

not advisable to enlarge him on bail.   

16) We have gone through all the details mentioned in the  

counter affidavit of the Senior Superintendent of Police, CBI,  

and Bank Securities and Fraud Cell, Mumbai.  The appellant  

has  also  filed  rejoinder  affidavit  repudiating  those  factual  

details.  At this juncture, it is unnecessary to go into further  

details.  In the earlier order, we have noted the assurance of  

the  ASG  for  completion  of  the  case  within  three  months.  

Admittedly, the same was not fulfilled due to various reasons.  

It  is  also  not  in  dispute  that  though the  charge  sheet  and  

additional charge sheet were submitted to the Court, the same  

have not been approved and framed.  In the meanwhile, apart  

from absence of some of the accused on various dates, due to  

some  reasons  or  other  including  medical  grounds,  the  

appellant  herein  has  also  filed  a  petition  for  ‘discharge’.  

Further,  even in the counter affidavit filed by the CBI, it  is  

stated  that  the  accused  persons  moved  applications  under  

Section  239  of  the  Code  of  Criminal  Procedure,  1973  for  

16

discharge and the same are pending for hearing and disposal  

and further the Madhao Merchantile  Bank case is going on  

day-to-day basis before the Special CBI Court and in addition  

to  the  same,  Sohrabuddin  Fake  Encounter  case  is  also  

pending for trial before the same Court.  It is clear that the  

said Special CBI Court is over burdened and in view of the  

voluminous  materials  the  prosecution  has  collected,  

undoubtedly the trial may take a longer time.

17) This Court has taken the view that when there is a delay  

in  the  trial,  bail  should  be  granted  to  the  accused.   [Vide  

Babba vs. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 11 SCC 569, Vivek  

Kumar vs.  State of U.P., (2000) 9 SCC 443.]  But the same  

should not be applied to all cases mechanically.

18) The Court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a  

judicious manner and not as a matter of course.  Though at  

the stage of granting bail, a detailed examination of evidence  

and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case need  

not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders  

reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted,  

particularly,  where  the  accused  is  charged  of  having  

17

committed a serious offence.  The Court granting bail has to  

consider, among other circumstances, the factors such as a)  

the nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of  

conviction  and  the  nature  of  supporting  evidence;  b)  

reasonable  apprehension  of  tampering  with  the  witness  or  

apprehension of threat to the complainant and; c) prima facie  

satisfaction of the court in support of the charge.  In addition  

to the same, the Court while considering a petition for grant of  

bail in a non-bailable offence apart from the seriousness of the  

offence,  likelihood  of  the  accused  fleeing  from  justice  and  

tampering with the prosecution witnesses, have to be noted.  

Considering the present scenario and there is no possibility of  

commencement of trial in the near future and also of the fact  

that the appellant is in custody from 31.03.2010, except the  

period of interim bail, i.e. from 15.09.2011 to 30.11.2011, we  

hold that it is not a fit case to fix any outer limit taking note of  

the materials collected by the prosecution.   This Court has  

repeatedly  held  that  when  the  undertrial  prisoners  are  

detained in jail custody to an indefinite period, Article 21 of  

the  Constitution  is  violated.   As  posed  in  the  Sanjay  

18

Chandra’s case (supra) we are also asking the same question  

i.e. whether the speedy trial is possible in the present case for  

the reasons mentioned above.   

19) As observed earlier, we are conscious of the fact that the  

present  appellant  along  with  the  others  are  charged  with  

economic offences of huge magnitude.  At the same time, we  

cannot  lose  sight  of  the  fact  that  though  the  Investigating  

Agency  has  completed  the  investigation  and  submitted  the  

charge  sheet  including  additional  charge  sheet,  the  fact  

remains  that  the  necessary  charges  have  not  been framed,  

therefore, the presence of the appellant in custody may not be  

necessary  for  further  investigation.   In  view  of  the  same,  

considering  the  health  condition  as  supported  by  the  

documents  including  the  certificate  of  the  Medical  Officer,  

Central Jail Dispensary, we are of the view that the appellant  

is  entitled  to  an  order  of  bail  pending  trial  on  stringent  

conditions in order to safe guard the interest of the CBI.  

20) In  the  light  of  what  is  stated  above,  the  appellant  is  

ordered to be released on bail on executing a bond with two  

solvent  sureties,  each  in  a  sum  of  Rs.  5  lakhs  to  the  

19

satisfaction  of  the  Special  Judge,  CBI,  Ahmedabad  on  the  

following conditions:

i) the appellant shall  not directly or indirectly make  

any  inducement,  threat  or  promise  to  any  person  

acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade  

him to disclose such facts to the Court or to any other  

authority.

ii) the appellant shall remain present before the Court  

on the dates fixed for hearing of the case, for any reason  

due to unavoidable circumstances for remaining absent  

he has to give intimation to the Court and also to the  

concerned officer of CBI and make a proper application  

that he may be permitted to be present through counsel;

iii) the appellant shall surrender his passport, if any, if  

not already surrendered and in case if he is not a holder  

of the same, he shall file an affidavit;

iv) In  case  he  has  already  surrendered  the  Passport  

before  the  Special  Judge,  CBI,  that  fact  should  be  

supported by an affidavit.

20

v) liberty is given to the CBI to make an appropriate  

application  for  modification/recalling  the  present  order  

passed  by  us,  if  the  appellant  violates  any  of  the  

conditions imposed by this Court.  

21) The appeal is disposed of on the above terms.    

………….…………………………J.                  (P. SATHASIVAM)                                  

       ………….…………………………J.                 (J. CHELAMESWAR)                                   

NEW DELHI; FEBRUARY 10, 2012.

21