LexCHANDRASWAMI AND ANOTHER versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A CHANDRASWAMI AND ANOTHER v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION NOVEMBER 7, 1996 B (A.M. AHMADI, CJ., J.S. VERMA AND B.N. KIRPAL, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: S. 473(1)-Bail-Appellants suspected of having committed offence C u!s 120B read with s.420 !PC, 16 years ago-Appellants arrested in 1988. and released on bail on certain conditions-Charge-sheet filed in April 1996-Appellants again arrested on 3.5.96-Bail rejected-Order passed cancelling the bail granted earlier-Meanwhile trial commenced- Complainant, being the main witness examined and a part of cross- examination recorded-Held, while considering the application for bail, D the paramount consideration would always be to ensure that the enlargement of the suspect on bail will not jeopardise the prosecution case-In the instant case, prosecution has not been able to show that the appellants would be in a position to influence the witnesses (the main witness being the complainant himself) or temper with the evidence-The case does not fall in either of the clauses of s.473(1)-Appellants ordered to be released E on bail subject to certain conditions. CRJMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1912 Of 1996. F From the Judgment and Order dated 17.9.96 of the Delhi High Court G in Cr!. Misc. (Main) No. 2068 of I 996. G. Ramaswamy, Ashok Arora, D. Nigam, Vipin Nair, Rajiv Dutta and Santosh P. for the Appellants. The following Order of the Court was delivered : Leave granted. A complaint dated 25.8.1987 was received from one Shri Lakhu H Bhai Pathak of U .K. whereupon a case under Section I 20B read with 554 CHANDRASWAMI v. C.B.I. 555 Section 420 I.P.C. was registered against the appellants. In brief. the allegations of the aforesaid complainant were that during the year 1983, the appellants came in contact with the complainant Lakhu Bhai Pathak and led him to believe that they wielded sufficient influence A in India to secure for him lucrative contracts in India. It was further alleged that in the month of December, 1983, the appellants induced him to pay B an amount of US$ one lakh for procuring a contract for him. This amount was alleged to have been paid to appellant No. I Chandraswami, by two cheques, one for US$ 27,000 dated 29.12.1983 and another for US$ 73,000 dated 30.12.1983. Both the cheques were stated to have been handed over to appellant No.I on January 4, 1984 in New York. c Both the appellants denied the aforesaid allegations as being false and baseless. However, on the aforesaid complaint having been lodged, the appellants were arrested on 13.2.1988 but were ordered to be released on bail, vide order dated 17.2.1988 of the learned Addi. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi. While passing the order, some conditions were imposed including one that the appellants would not leave the country D without prior permission of the Court and they would join the investigation as and when required. On an application being filed, the High Court of Delhi, vide order dated 4.8.1988, allowed the appellants to go abroad on certain conditions. E Thereafter, the appellants went abroad on a number of occasions after securing permission from the Delhi High Court. The last such permission was granted under order dated 4.9.1995. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 28.11.1995 in a Public Interest Litigation, being Writ Petition No.640 of 1995 (Anukul Chandra F Pradhan v. U.O.I. and Anr), which was confirmed by order dated 2.4.1996, the appellants have been restrained from going abroad. In reply to the aforesaid writ petition, the respondent stated that the investigation in the first information report lodged by Lakhu Bhai Pathak was still pending. Thereafter, on 12.4.1996, the respondent filed a charge-sheet in G the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (C.M.M.) Delhi, against the two appellants. The C.M.M. Delhi, vide order dated 2.5.1996, took cognizance of the offence and issued non-bailable warrants against both the appellants. Consequent thereto, the appellants were arrested in Madras on 2.5.1996 and have been in custody since then. The appellants, on 3.5.1996 filed on application for cancellation of the non-bailable warrants H 556 SUPREMECOURTREPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. A and also moved another application for grant of bail. Both these applications were dismissed by the C.M.M. on 4.5.1996. He also passed an order cancelling the bail granted earlier to the ap
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.