B.N. Santhosh vs C.B.I./ACB

A.V. Chandrashekara, J.—Petitioner is accused No. 3 in a case bearing R.C. 17(A)/2012 registered by CBI/ACB, Bangalore. The offences alleged against this petitioner and other accused are punishable under Section 120-B r/w Sections 406, 409, 379, 411, 447 of IPC and under Sections 7, 12 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) & (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He is apprehending arrest at the hands of respondent-police. Hence, anticipatory bail application is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. before this Court.

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has argued that entire investigation has been completed and charge sheet has also been filed and therefore, petitioner be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail.

Per contra, learned senior and special counsel for CBI, has opposed the anticipatory bail application on the ground that the offences alleged against the accused are serious in nature.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent-CBI.

Originally the case came to be registered in FOC No. 17/2009-10 by the Section Forester of Ankola for offences punishable under Sections 2(7)(b)(iv), 62 and 80 of the Karnataka Forest Act and Rules 143 and 162 of Karnataka Forest Rules. When the investigation was taken up by the RFO, Ankola, the case was renumbered as Cr. No. 189/10 on the file of Ankola police station. On a PIL filed before the Hon''ble Supreme Court, exhaustive directions have been given to the CBI, directing thorough investigation about the mining activities in the district of Bellary and to know the approximate quantity of iron ore illegally extracted, transported and exported.

After conducting a thorough investigation, the CBI has registered a case in RC No. 17(A)/2012 and has concluded investigation also.

In this case, M/s. Bhagavathi International is accused No. 2. The said accused No. 2 is stated to have raised a provisional invoice bearing No. 11 dated 15.03.2010 and issued delivery order dated 15.03.2010 for selling about 5000 MTs of iron ore fines to M/s. ILC Industries Ltd., i.e., accused No. 4, which had entered into sale purchase agreement. By the time, sale purchase agreement was entered into by accused No. 2 with accused No. 4, heap of iron ore stocked near Belikere port has been seized by the forest authorities.

This petitioner who is accused No. 3 was handling iron ore business of M/s. Bhagawathi International and had issued invoices as aforesaid. Accused No. 4 is stated to have loaded and exported 1530 MT of iron ore by vessel MV Jin Yao and other vessels. The export of iron ore included the seized cargo purchased from M/s. Bhagawathi International. By the time, the transaction took place between accused No. 2 and accused No. 4, at the instance of accused No. 3, the large heap of iron ore had already been seized by the forest authorities and seizure had been reported to the jurisdictional Magistrate court.

What is argued by learned senior counsel for the petitioner before this Court is that, accused Nos. 2 and 4 have already been released on bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. by this Court and the same benefit will have to be extended to this petitioner also, as the transaction between accused No. 2 and accused No. 4 had taken place at the instance of accused No. 3, much prior to the seizure of iron ore heap by the forest authorities.

This Court is unable to accept the said contention, for the reason that the case bearing Cr. No. 189/10 has not been quashed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court. The said case has been stayed on the basis of exhaustive directions given by the Hon''ble Supreme Court to the CBI to conduct thorough investigation. On conducting investigation, the CBI has found voluminous irregularities and illegalities in the mining of iron ore in the district of Bellary and illegal transportation of the same to Belikere port and consequential export of the same that too after the seizure of huge heap of iron ore at Belikere port.

Taking into consideration the magnitude of the case and the role of this petitioner, the discretion cannot be exercised under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. at this stage. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.