LexY.S. JAGAN MOHAN REDDY versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 3 S.C.R. 547 Y.S. JAGAN MOHAN REDDY v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (Criminal Appeal No. 730 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 -- Factors c to be taken into consideration while granting bail - Explained - Charge-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 Coffuption Act - Charges relating to amassing of huge ill-gotten wealth, allotment of lands on 0 relaxed norms, abuse of public office, laundering bribe money through investment in bogus companies etc. - Further . investigation in progress - Held: Economic offences having deep rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds, need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave E offences affecting economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to financial health of the country, and being a class apart, they need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail - On going through Status Report furnished by CBI and counter affidavit sworn by Deputy Inspector General of Police and Chief Investigating F Officer, release of appellant at this stage would hamper investigation as it may influence the witnesses and tamper with the material evidence - However, CBI is directed to complete the investigation expeditiously and file the charge sheet(s) - Thereafter, appellant is free to renew his prayer for bail before G trial court. On the orders of the High Court, CBI registered a case for various offences under the Penal Code and M7 H 548 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 3 S.C.R. A Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 relating to amassing of huge ill-gotton wealth, conducting media business with such money, floating bogus companies with benami share holders and laundering the bribe money through investment in such companies, allotment of lands, abuse B of public office, contracts of irrigation projects, special relaxations/permissions for real estate ventures, mines etc. The appellant, the son of a former Chief Minister, was arraigned as accused no. 1 in the case along with 73 others. Four charge-sheets in the case were filed c respectively on 31.3.2012, 23.4.2012, 7 .5.2012 and 13.8.2012. The appellant was arrested on 29.5.2012. His bail applications filed from time to time were rejected. The appellant on 16.11.2012 again unsuccessfully moved an application before the Special Court for default/ regular 0 bail. The High Court also declined his prayer. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in E the matter of bail. Such offences having deep rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds, need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health F of the country. [para 15) [561-D-E] 1.2. In the instant case, in the Status Report, the CBI has assured that the investigation is being carried out expeditiously as directed by this Court. It is stated that among 7 issues as referred to in the earlier order dated G 5.10.2012 of this Court, the CBI has completed the investigation with respect to one matter and investigation is progressing with regard to other 6 issues also and is in the final stage with respect to three of them wherein charge sheet/final report is likely to be filed shortly. [para H 1 OJ (556-F-H] Y.S. JAGAN MOHAN REDDY v. CENTRAL BUREAU 549 OF INVESTIGATION 1.3. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind A the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the B accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations. [para 16] [561-F-G] 1.4. On going into all the details furnished by CBI in C the form of Status Report and the counter affidavit dated 06.05.2013 sworn by the Deputy Inspector General of Police and Chief Investigating Officer, the huge magnitude of the case and also the request of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.