-And- In the matter of : Jatinder Pal J.P. Singh

Transcription

1 C.R.M. No of 2010 In the matter of : an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 19 th August, 2010 in connection with CBI : SPE: Kolkata Case No. RCO102010A0017 dated , under Sections 120B of the Indian Penal Code, read with Sections 7, 8, 10, 12, 13 (2) read with Sections 13(1)(d) & 15 of Prevention of Corruption Act, And- In the matter of : Jatinder Pal J.P. Singh Petitioner. Mr. Pradip Ghosh (Senior Advocate) Mr. Sekhar Bose Mr. Joymalya Bagchi Mr. Tamal Kanti Mukherjee Mr. Harvindev Singh Bhullar Mrs. Subhasree Patel Ms. Mahua Das Mrs. Isita Chatterjee for the Petitioner. Mr. Himangsu De for the C.B.I. This is an application for bail in connection with offences punishable under Sections 7/8/10/12/13(2)/13(1)(d)/15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code being investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation. Heard Mr. Pradip Ghosh, Senior Counsel who, with all his legal eloquence made his submissions in support of the petitioner s prayer for bail and at length. Mr. Ghosh apprised this Court the nature of the allegations against the petitioner by taking it through the First Information Report. Mr. Ghosh in his usual fairness pointed out this Court, it is the allegation against the petitioner that he was a tout and a middleman and he induced the authorities of different medical colleges, whose

2 2 application for recognition has been turned down on a number of occasions, due to lack of adequate infrastructure by the Medical Council of India, the statutory authority, to bribe and gratify its chairman to obtain recognition. Mr. Ghosh further argued that following the discovery of the involvement of the President of the Medical Council of India Dr. Ketan Desai, in giving recognition to different medical colleges, against receipt of bribe, where the present petitioner acted as a tout, a specific case has been registered against him and against the present petitioner at New Delhi. Although, the said case was for obtaining bribe to the tune of a few crores by the said President of Medical Council of India, as a motive for granting recognition to a medical college at Patiala, but in the FIR there was sufficient indications that the accused persons were involved in similar other offences whereby the said accused illegally obtained huge money, as bribe, therefore, it was the precise submission of Mr. Ghosh that there cannot have been a new FIR over the allegations that the said President of Medical Council of India obtained huge bribe and against the present petitioner to act as a tout for negotiating such illegal deal for granting recognition to another medical college situated at Calcutta. Mr. Ghosh further submitted that Medical Council of India is only a recommending authority and at best can recommend the Central Government for recognition of any medical college but the final decision is left with the Central Government and not with the Council.

3 3 Therefore, the allegations made against the said President as well as against the present petitioner and the role attributed to the petitioner in the deal is not at all acceptable. Mr. Ghosh further submitted before this Court that already the present petitioner has been granted bail after his detention in custody for nearly 44 days by the Hon ble Delhi High Court, where the nature of allegations against him is identical. Mr. Ghosh also pointed out that although when the petitioner was granted bail by the Delhi High Court, despite the fact FIR of this case has been registered, the C.B.I. has not disclosed the factum of this FIR and merely indicated that investigation has disclosed a prima facie case showing their involvement in similar incident relating to one more medical college. He submitted this shows sheer mala fide on the part of the investigating agency to frustrate the benefit of the bail granted to the petitioner by the Delhi High Court by again arresting him in connection with the another case, where FIR was lodged before he was granted bail by the Delhi High Court. Lastly, Mr. Ghosh submitted that considering the petitioner s period of detention in custody in connection with this case this Court may be pleased to allow the petitioner s prayer for bail. In this connection Mr. Ghosh relied on two cases, viz., Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal Vs. State of T.N., reported in 2005 SCC (Cri) 481 and Uday Chand & Ors. Vs. Sheikh Mohd. Abdullah, Chief Minister, J & K & Ors., reported in (1983) 2 SCC 417.

4 4 On the other hand, Mr. Himangshu De, the Learned Special Public Prosecutor of the C.B.I. produced the Case Diary and had drawn the attention of this Court to the statement of one Bhaskar Ghosh, who happened to be the Executive Officer of K.P.C. Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata and submitted that from his statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code and from the recovery of his Mobile Phone and Laptop it is found that the present petitioner had in regular touch with the said accused persons and in the deal of bribing the President of Medical Council of India, for illegally obtaining the recognition of the said medical college, and he played a very pivotal role. He opposed the prayer for bail. Now, before adverting to the rival contentions of the parties this Court feels it would be expedient that the law as laid down by the Hon ble Apex Court time again as to what are be the consideration for deciding the question of bail be taken into consideration as well as the guidelines prescribed by the Apex Court in this regard. It needs no reference to any particular case, on this point, and it would be sufficient to refer the ratio of those decisions which are althrough uniform. The Court dealing with an application for bail is required to exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. The factors which the Court must consider amongst other circumstances before granting bail are;

5 5 (i) The nature of accusation and severity of the punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence. (ii) The reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant. (iii) Prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge. According to the Hon ble Apex Court although no elaborate reason for granting bail touching the merit of the case is necessary, but the basis of granting bail must always be indicated more particularly when an order of rejection of bail by the lower Court is reversed. The observation of the Hon ble Apex Court is to the following effect; The reasons need not be very detail or elaborate, lest it may cause prejudice to the case of the parties but must be sufficiently indicative of the process of reasoning leading to the passing of the impugned order. Now, coming to the case at hand and considering the Case Diary it can hardly be said that no prima facie case has been made out against the present petitioner for his arrest and then detention in custody. This is a serious case of corruption by the public servant and the present petitioner appears to be an instrumentality in the deal. This is a case of granting recognition to a medical college, for imparting medical education to the students, who in future be entrusted with a noble profession to treat the ailing citizens and the citizens

6 6 have to depend on them, when the question is one of life and death. The submission of Mr. Ghosh that registration of FIR was not brought to the notice of the Delhi High Court deliberately, appears to be not correct, because I find from the Case Diary except recording of the FIR there was no investigation till that day when the present petitioner was granted bail by the Hon ble Delhi High Court. Furthermore, in my opinion no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner by such omission and if that was otherwise, the possibilities of rejection of petitioner s prayer for bail by the Hon ble Delhi High Court on the ground, against the petitioner another case with identical allegation is pending cannot also be ruled out. So far as the other submissions of Mr. Ghosh is concerned that no offence has been made out against the petitioner, is a matter, that would be too pre-mature for this Court to comment on. Now, coming to the main issue in this case whether the petitioner be enlarged on bail or not this Court finds that the petitioner has been in jail for nearly 48 days. Although, the hearing of the case was adjourned on last Wednesday on the prayer of the Counsel C.B.I. for enabling them to make further investigation, but now it is submitted on behalf of the C.B.I., that thereafter there is no very good progress in the matter. It is an admitted position after being granted bail by the Delhi High Court in connection with a case instituted on identical allegations, no allegation has been forthcoming against the

7 7 petitioner that he has in any way misused his liberty of bail. Already in terms of such order of bail the petitioner has surrendered his Passport in Court. Moreover this is a case essentially based on records and more particularly on electronic records, which are now in custody of the C.B.I. It is an admitted position that there is no remote possibilities of submission of charge-sheet within the statutory period, thus this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case where the petitioner be released on bail. Let the petitioner be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, 24-Parganas (South) on a bond of Rs. 50,000/- of two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each, both of whom must be local. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Delhi, I feel that restricting the petitioner s movement within the city of Calcutta or to direct him to meet the Investigating Officer of the case, on regular intervals will not at all be desirable for ends of justice, thus I direct that the petitioner shall meet the Investigating Officer of the case as and when required. I further direct whenever the Investigating Officer of the case, shall require the petitioner s presence before him for the purpose of interrogation, he must sent a notice in writing to the petitioner at least three days before and if such notice is given the petitioner must report to the Investigating Officer accordingly, unless prevented due to any unforeseen circumstances.

8 8 It goes without saying whatever observation made hereinabove was only to deal with the submissions made on the behalf of the Learned Counsel of the parties and the same must not be construed as my opinion as regards to the merit of the case. This application for bail thus stands disposed of. ( Ashim Kumar Roy, J. )