LexNIMMAGADDA PRASAD versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 3 S.C.R. 493 NIMMAGADDA PRASAD V. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (Criminal Appeal No. 728 of 2013) MAY 9, 2013. [P. SATHASIVAM AND M.Y. EQBAL, JJ.] CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973: A B ss. 439 and 173(8) - Bail - Economic offences - Charge- c sheets filed against appellant and others for offences punishable u/ss 420, 409 and 477-A /PC and s.13(2) read with s. 13(1 )(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act - Further investigation u/s 173(8) pending - Held: Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different 0 approach in the matter of bail -Economic offences having deep rooted conspiracies and involving huge Joss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to financial health of the country E - In the status report, it is also claimed that CBI has to examine various persons from different Government Departments, Banks/ NBFCs, private companies/individuals involved in diversion! misappropriation of funds, employees of the company of which the appellant was the director, its holding F company and their group companies to ascertain the facts related to the case - Taking note of all these aspects, the Court is of the opinion that appellant cannot be released at this stage - However, CBI is directed to complete the investigation and file charge sheet(s) as early as possible - Thereafter, appellant is free to renew his prayer for bail before trial court. G Pursuant to the order of the High Court in a writ petition, a case for commission of offences punishable u/ss 420, 409 and 477-A IPC and 13(2) read with s.13(1)(c) 493 H 494 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 3 S.C.R. A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered by CBI against a Member of Parliament (A-1) and 13 others. The appellant was arraigned as A-3 in the said case. After the charge-sheet was filed, the appellant was arrested on 15.5.2012. The case related to amassing B illegal wealth, conducting of media business with ill gotton money, allotment of thousands acres of lands with norms relaxed, handling the money through hawala channels, obtaining big loans violating bank guidelines, grant of mining leases on extraneous considerations, c payment of illegal gratification etc. Four charge-sheets were filed and investigation was continuing u/s 173(8) CrPC in connection with certain related matters. Earlier prayers by appellant for bail were rejected with liberty to renew the prayer on completion of investigation. On 0 16.11.2012, the appellant filed two petitions before the Special Judge for CBI - one seeking default /statutory bail and the other seeking regular bail in CC No. 8 of 2012. Both the applications were rejected. The criminal petition before the High Court for grant of bail was also dismissed. E Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. It has been pointed out on behalf of the CBI that after filing of the charge sheet on 13.08.2012, in view of further materials, the CBI started investigation, F which is permissible u/s 173(8) of the Code to look into the aspects of the involvement of the appellant in the company of which he was the Director and its group companies. In view of the same, undoubtedly, the investigating agency may require further time to collect G all the materials, particularly, the nexus of the appellant with those concerns and the appellant being the beneficiary of the quantum of the amount secured. [para 25] [504-G-H; 505-A] 1.2. From the status report, it is brought to the notice H NIMMAGADDA PRASAD v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF 495 INVESTIGATION of the Court that during the year 2008-09, the Government A of Andhra Pradesh alienated 8,844 acres of land in favour a newly incorporated company, with more exemptions/ subsidies, which is termed as a holding company of the company of which the appellant was a director. In the status report, it is also claimed that the CBI has to B examine various persons from different Government Departments, Banks/NBFCs, private companies/ individuals involved in diversion/misappropriation of funds, employees of the company of which the appellant is the director, its holding company and their group c companies to ascertain the facts related to the case. [para 18 and 20] [501-H; 502-A; 503-B-C] 1.3. The trial Judge was of th:e view that if the appellant is enlarged on bail,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.