RAKESH KUMAR SINGHANIA V. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Cr.M.P./3094/2019

AI Insights

Rakesh Kumar Singhania, the petitioner, sought modification of the bail conditions set in A.B.A. No. 2162 of 2018, which included a monetary deposit, mandatory trial appearances, and passport deposit requirements. The modifications were requested to facilitate his business operations, allowing for necessary foreign travel and reducing the burden of mandatory court appearances. The C.B.I. opposed the modifications, citing concerns over the potential for the petitioner to evade justice and the impact on trial proceedings. However, the court found that the petitioner's compliance with previous conditions and his business needs justified the modifications.

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 741190 (HC-JHARKHAND)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 10-02-2021
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Sumit Mehta versus State (NCT of Delhi)
• Laws Referred To: Indian Penal Code, Mines and Minerals Regulations and Development Act, Criminal Procedure Code
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: ROHIT SINHA
• Assessee Lawyers: PANDEY RAI
• Keywords: Anticipatory bail; Business expansion; Criminal charges; Foreign travel; Modification of Bail Conditions
• Section: 21; 468; 420; 471; 120B; 467; 438(2)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 3094 of 2019 ------- Rakesh Kumar Singhania … … Petitioner Versus Union of India through the C.B.I. … … Opposite Party ------- CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY ------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, Advocate For the C.B.I. : Mr. Rohit Sinha, Advocate ------- 16/10.02.2021 Heard Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rohit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for modification and alteration of the conditions imposed vide order dated 03.08.2018 passed in A.B.A. No. 2162 of 2018. The petitioner is an accused in connection with R.C. Case No. 7(S)/2010-AHD-R for the offence punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals Regulations and Development Act. On conclusion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted by the C.B.I. based upon which cognizance was taken for the offence punishable under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by this Court in A.B.A. No. 2162 of 2018 on certain terms and conditions which are quoted herein below: (i) The petitioner Rakesh Kumar Singhania (A.B.A. No. 2162 of 2018) is directed to deposit cost of Rs. 1,00,000/-, petitioner- Meghnath Prasad @ Megh Nath Prasad @ Megh Nath Saha (A.B.A. No. 1270/18), petitioners, Shakti Kumar Rajak and Binod Ram (A.B.A. No. 2178/18), petitioner Jayant Kumar Birua (A.B.A. No. 7363/17) and petitioner- Rajib Pal (A.B.A. No. 3264/18) are directed to deposit cost of Rs. 15,000/- in the account of Juvenile Justice Fund bearing A/C/ No. 37344984625, State Bank of India, Hatia Branch latest by 20.08.2018 and produce the receipt of deposition of the aforesaid amount before the trial court on the date of their surrender before the trial court. -2- (ii) Petitioners will fully cooperate with the trial and also appear physically on each and every date of trial before the trial court. (iv) If the petitioners want exemption from appearance, they will inform the learned counsel for the C.B.I. in advance and after taking necessary permission from Trial Court/Special Judge, they may be exempted from personal appearance. (v) The petitioners will not try to influence the prosecution witnesses during trial. (vi) The petitioners will deposit their passport (if any) before the Trial court-Special court on the date of their surrender. Through this application the petitioner has sought for modification of the order dated 03.08.2018 by altering and/or expunging condition nos. II and VI as well as the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the order passed in A.B.A. No. 2162 of 2018 the petitioner had surrendered before the learned court below on 16.08.2018 and had furnished bail bonds and had also complied with the requirements as enunciated in the order dated 03.08.2018. It has been submitted that the petitioner is a whole time Director of two companies, namely Logan Minerals Private Limited and Apical Exim Private Limited, having their registered offices at Kolkata. Mr. Rai, further submits that the petitioner is required to undertake frequent foreign travels for the purposes of his business and in such connection he has made reference to the various foreign travels undertaken by the petitioner. Continuing further, the turnover of the companies and the foreign exchange earned have been highlighted apart from the income tax paid for various assessment years in the recent past. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the affiliations of the companies with the statutory authorities. He has submitted that the business of the petitioner is expanding and he is required to regularly and -3- timely meet his clients based on foreign locations and the conditions imposed in the order dated 03.08.2018 is acting as a deterrent in the expansion of his business. Learned counsel has also referred to I.A. No. 5425 of 2020 wherein reference has been made to the various orders passed by this Court directing the interim release of passport and permitting the petitioner to travel abroad for business purposes. Mr. Rai, further submits that the petitioner has been regularly depositing his passport before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate-cum- Special Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I., Ranchi. He has expanded his argument by submitting that due to the spread of Covid-19 the petitioner was prevented from making foreign visits but with the situation significantly improving and restrictions on air travel easing the petitioner intends to visit various foreign destinations with respect to business assignments. It has been submitted that the petitioner is being sufficiently prevented on account of condition no. (vi) as well as condition no. (ii) apart from the conditions as laid down in Section 438(2)(iii) Cr.P.C. as it has specifically been pointed out that a permission from the court every time the petitioner seeks to travel abroad may be modified since it will create a hindrance in emergent situations where in the absence of previous permission of the court the business of the petitioner may be hampered. Mr. Rohit Sinha, learned counsel for the C.B.I. has referred to the counter affidavit filed by him which is primarily with respect to the allegations levelled against the petitioner and the result of the investigation indicating a primary role played by the petitioner. Mr. Sinha, submits that there is a reasonable apprehension that the petitioner may escape from the country to evade the process of law. The trial will also be delayed on account of the absence of the petitioner. It has also been submitted that the petitioner had accepted the conditions enumerated in the order dated 03.08.2018 passed in A.B.A. No. 2162 of 2018 and has routinely followed the same and therefore there is no necessity for modification of the conditions as sought for by the petitioner. He submits that such modification will be -4- hit by Section 362 of the Cr.P.C. as it is not permissible to alter or review any order or judgment save and except to correct a clerical or an arithmetical error. On consideration of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties and on going through the records it appears that the petitioner after imposition of the conditions vide order dated 03.08.2018 passed in A.B.A. No. 2162 of 2018 had on several occasions undertaken foreign travel for the purposes of business. The conditions have been diligently followed and after return the petitioner had also deposited his passport. The petitioner has been categorical in his statement regarding proposed foreign visits which has been enumerated in I.A. No. 5425 of 2020. Reference has been made to 16 countries with which India is having “Transport Bubbles” and Dubai and Nigeria are in the list which the petitioner intends to travel apart from Benin which is a neighbouring country to Nigeria. The petitioner also intends to travel to Singapore as stated in the said application. The past record of the petitioner with respect to foreign travel and with respect to complying with the conditions imposed in the order dated 03.08.2018 passed in A.B.A. No. 2162 of 2018 is blemishless. The learned counsel for the C.B.I. has shown his apprehension that the petitioner may flee from justice if the conditions are relaxed but the said contention does not seem to be with any basis. The previous record of the petitioner as stated in this application clearly reveals about his travel to various foreign countries after taking due permission and depositing the passport before the learned court below on his return and therefore such apprehension merely appears to be a myth. The condition no. (vi) and the condition as enumerated in Section 438 (2)(iii) of the Cr.P.C. are in some way relateable as both are with respect to undertaking any foreign travel by an accused. It is to be noted herein that the petitioner through a chart in the application itself has highlighted the turnover of the business as well as the foreign exchange being earned through -5- his two companies. The conditions imposed and with which the petitioner is aggrieved does seem to act as an impediment in further business expansions of the companies of the petitioner and it certainly does not imbibe any apprehension regarding the petitioner fleeing from justice considering the track record of the petitioner regarding his visitations to foreign countries and returning back and depositing the passport thus strictly adhering to the conditions imposed by this Court. It also appears that only charge has been framed and there has been no progress in the trial. So far as the plea raised by the learned counsel for the C.B.I. with respect to this application being hit by Section 362 of the Cr.P.C. is concerned the modification as sought for will neither tantamount to review of the order dated 03.08.2018 passed in A.B.A. No. 2162 of 2018 nor the same will alter the order. Therefore Section 362 of the Cr.P.C. can have no bearing in the present application filed by the petitioner. In the case of “Sumit Mehta versus State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2013) 15 SCC 570, while considering the rights of an accused and the enforcement of the criminal justice system while imposing conditions on grant bail it was held as follows: “11. While exercising power under Section 438 of the Code, the court is duty-bound to strike a balance between the individual’s right to personal freedom and the right of investigation of the police. For the same, while granting relief under Section 438(1), appropriate conditions can be imposed under Section 438(2) so as to ensure an uninterrupted investigation. The object of putting such conditions should be to avoid the possibility of the person hampering the investigation. Thus, any condition, which has no reference to the fairness or propriety of the investigation or trial, cannot be countenanced as permissible under the law. So, the discretion of the court while imposing conditions must be exercised with utmost restraint.” Taking a cue from the aforesaid and on consideration of the background facts and circumstances of the case as enumerated above the personal liberty of the petitioner is also to be taken into consideration. Investigation has been completed leading to submission of charge-sheet and as stated above at -6- the present moment the trial is pending for appearance of the witnesses. At this juncture, therefore, the fetters which has been imposed upon the petitioner vide order dated 03.08.2018 passed in A.B.A. No. 2162 of 2018 needs to be relaxed since the petitioner has shown his bona fide on numerous occasions as enunciated in the petition itself and on consideration of the entire gamut of the circumstances leading to the modification/ alteration which has been sought for, the condition no. (vi) as well as the conditions imposed in Section 438(2)(iii) of the Cr.P.C., are modified and expunged. Consequently the condition no. (ii) which is with respect to appearance of the petitioner on each and every date physically before the learned trial court is also modified and deleted. The petitioner however shall be required to be physically present as and when directed by the learned trial court and shall before his visit to a foreign country inform the learned trial court regarding such proposed visit and with details of his return as also informing the concerned court after his return about his presence so as to facilitate the learned trial court to call for his physical appearance if required by the learned trial court. The rest of the conditions imposed in the order dated 03.08.2018 passed in A.B.A. No. 2162 of 2018 stands undisturbed. This application is allowed to the extent mentioned hereinabove. Pending I.A. stands disposed off. (R. Mukhopadhyay, J.) Alok/- "