Anosh Ekka vs Central Bureau of Investigation

R.K. Merathia

Both the bail applications were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

B.A. No. 6759 of 2011

This bail application arises out of R.C. 04(A)/10AHD �, instituted on the basis of the order dated 4.8.2010 passed in W.P. (PIL) No. 4700 of 2008, under which the Vigilance Case No. 26 of 2008 ( Special Case No. 32 of 2008) dated 26.11.2008, registered under Sections 406, 409, 420, 423, 424, 465 and 120B of IPC and Section 11/13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was transferred to CBI, (hereinafter referred to as the CBI Case).

B.A. No. 6728/2011

This bail application arises out of E.C.I.R. No. 01/PAT/09/AD of 2009, registered u/s 3 read with section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, (hereinafter referred to as Money Laundering Case).

B.A. No. 6759 of 2011 & B.A. No. 6728/2011

Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made common submissions in both the bail applications as follows.

The Hon''ble Supreme Court dismissed the prayer for bail in both the cases being S.L.A. (Crl.) No. 2008 of 2011 and S.L.P ( Crl) no. 2233 of 2011 on 18.3.2011 with liberty to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail after submission of chargesheet in CBI Case, or in case there is inordinate delay in completing the investigation. The case was handed over to CBI on 4.8.2010 but CBI has not completed the investigation till date. It will take years in conclusion of trial in Money Laundering Case as there is long list of witnesses and documents. The petitioner is in jail from 17.8.2009 i.e. for about 27 months out of the maximum punishment of 7 years. He relied on the judgment of Hon''ble Suprme Court dated 23rd November, 2011, passed in the case of Sanjay Chandra ( Cr. Appeal No. 2178 of 2011) and analogous cases, and submitted that petitioner should be granted bail.

On the other hand, Mr. Mokhtar Khan and Mr. A.K. Das, learned counsel appearing in CBI Case and Money Laundering Case, referring to the records, vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted as follows.

Petitioner''s prayer for bail was earlier rejected twice on merits. After becoming M.L.A. and then Minister, he acquired enormous assets within three years, in his name and in the name of his family members. He floated "Ekka Construction" in the name of his wife and relatives and got the Govt. work orders awarded, by his influence. He acquired big properties under 108 sale deeds. He also tampered with the evidences, even when he is in jail, by getting the contrary affidavits sworn by the witnesses. C.B.I. has been collecting materials about the assets in different parts of India and outside India.

Even after petitioner''s bail was rejected by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, petitioner has been avoiding attending court on so many dates on the purported ground of sickness. He remained in Hospitals for long periods, by his influence, money/muscle powers, and he was not produced in court by the jail Authorities on several dates and only after notice was issued to the Jail Authorities by the court, he was produced before the Court. Petitioner is not allowing the trial in Money Laundering case, to proceed as he has realized that his guilt will be proved and his political life may come to an end. Petitioner cannot take advantage of the judgement of Sanjay Chandra ( Supra) as he himself is guilty for delaying the investigation/trial. On the one hand, the petitioner has been delaying the investigation/trial and on the other hand he is claiming bail on the ground of delay.

According to the prosecution, after the petitioner became M.L.A. and then the Minister, he acquired enormous moveable and immovable assets, under 108 sale deeds in his own name and in the name of his family members within a short period of three years. By his influence he got the works allotted in the name of his fictitious construction Firm/ Company. Apart from acquiring enormous assets he also indulged in Money Laundering. Absolutely evasive replies were given by him and his wife about the assets. In CBI case, the CBI is collecting materials from different parts of the country and from outside the country also. In Money Laundering Case, charges have been framed on 19.11.2011. The allegations are very serious.

Petitioner''s bail was earlier rejected twice upto Hon''ble Supreme Court. However, liberty was given to renew the prayer if there is inordinate delay in completing the investigation. But from the records, it appears that the petitioner himself is responsible for delaying the investigation/the trial on one pretext or the other, as noticed above. The purported ground of sickness was taken on number of dates to avoid appearance in court and for remaining in hospitals for long periods. Even the Jail Authorities did not produce him on several dates. Only after the court issued notice, the Jail Authorities produced the petitioner in court. He won M.L.A. election even when he was in jail. Even while in jail, he got contrary affidavits, sworn and thereby tampered with the evidences. All these things indicate petitioner''s influence and his powers which are likely to adversely affect the enquiry/trial.

Prima facie, the petitioner, who claims to be a public representative, is involved in looting and laundering enormous public money. As noticed above, petitioner has not only tampered with the evidences but has been also abusing the process of law and is making mockery of the justice delivery system.

After hearing the parties at length and considering all the aspects of the matter, in my opinion, the petitioner cannot take advantage of the judgement of Sanjay Chandra ( Supra), and he does not deserve bail in these cases. Accordingly, the prayer for bail in both the cases is rejected.