By IANS,
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court Monday granted bail to five co-accused in the 2G case. Following are the highlights of Justice V.K. Shali’s order and the proceedings of the day:
– There is no chance of their fleeing from the process of law, the court said, allowing bail pleas of DMK MP Kanimozhi, Kalaignar TV chief Sharad Kumar, Cineyug Films’ Karim Morani and Kusegaon Fruits and Vegetables Pvt. Ltd. directors Asif Balwa and Rajeev B. Agarwal.
– Kanimozhi is entitled to invocation of additional ground of being a woman as envisaged in Section 437 Code of Criminal Procedure which lays down that in case an accused, who…is sick, infirm or a woman or a child less than 16 years of age, he/she is entitled to bail notwithstanding the offence of which he or she is charged may carry life imprisonment.
– Conditions set by the Supreme Court while granting bail to five co-accused and telecom companies’ officials last week will also apply in the case of Kanimozhi and the other four.
– I am of the view that when Supreme Court has reproduced the facts of the case, given the magnitude of the offence, the severity of the punishment which it entails, it has taken into note of the facts of the accused under section 409 (criminal breach of trust by public servant) under Indian Penal Code (IPC) or the conspiracy thereof which carry life imprisonment.
– If despite the aforesaid facts, the Supreme Court has released the co-accused person Sanjay Chandra (of Unitech Wireless) on bail, the said benefit cannot be denied to the petitioner on the grounds of parity.
– They are being directed to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.5 lakh each with two sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the special trial court.
– If the accused 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 facts, the CBI would have liberty to seek appropriate recalling of the order passed by this court.
– Most of the evidence against the petitioners is documentary and there is no prima facie evidence or likelihood which may persuade the court to doubt that the petitioners have reason to believe that they may create conditions which may not be conducive to hold free and fair trial.
– I feel merit in contention of counsel for petitioner that although the apex court order does not find the mention of the word section 409 IPC or the factum of life imprisonment, which could be imposed for the said offence, in the order but it was cognizant of the fact that all co-accused person in the bail applications which were under consideration were charged so.
– While dealing with the facts in the batch of applications of Unitech’s Sanjay Chandra case it had taken charges against all the co-accused as a whole and not individual charges, therefore, if that be the position, this court ought not to deny bail to the petitioner on account of the omission, though inadvertent, in the order of the apex court.
– The offence of which the petitioners in general have been charged, carries a punishment of five years under Prevention of Corruption Act or the IPC in comparison to Chandra, where it carried seven years’ term. So, in a way, petitioners’ stand is on better footing, therefore, they ought not to be denied the benefit of bail.
– Almost all the accused persons have roots in the society, though living in different parts of the country with varied interest, therefore, there is no chances of their fleeing from the processes of law. In any case, their movements can be regulated by imposing conditions by the Supreme Court.
– Every petitioner says that the grant of bail to him will not create any impediment in the holding of a free and fair trial and that he would be available at all times to submit to the custody to the court as and when called upon to do so.
– Similarly, in a given case, the prosecuting agency may not raise this objection or make a positive statement as has been done in the present case that it has no objection to the grant of bail to the accused persons.
– I feel that though such a concession granted by the prosecuting agency may be a very relevant and important factor to grant bail but I do not feel that the court is bound to accept such a statement blindly. The court is expected to exercise its own judgment.