AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N. Ananda, J.—The petitioner has been arrayed as accused No. 1 in Spl.C.C. No. 6/2014, accused No. 5 in Spl.C.C. No. 14/2014, accused No. 5 in Spl.C.C. No. 36/2014 and accused No. 3 in Spl.C.C. No. 37/2014. He has filed this writ petition for the following reliefs:--
"a. Quashing the FIR in RC No. 17(A)/12 registered by the respondent at Annexure-K.
b. Directing the respondent to treat the charge sheets in Spl. CC No. 14/14, 36/14 and 37/14 at Annexures-M, N and O respectively filed in RC No. 17(A)/12 as supplementary charge sheets filed in RC No. 14(A)/12 (Spl. CC No. 6/14) at Annexure-L, with a further direction to try all the charge sheets in Spl. CC No. 6/14, 14/14, 36/14 and 37/14 at Annexures-L, M, N and O together and to dispose of the same by a single judgment.
c. Consequently quashing the entire proceedings in Spl. CC No. 14/14, 36/14 and 37/14 at Annexures-M, N and O on the file of the learned Court of the City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Court for CBI Cases, CCH No. 34 at Bangalore."
It is seen from records that the respondent (C.B.I., Anti Corruption Branch) registered FIR in R.C.14(A)/2012 on 13.09.2012, as per the directions of the Supreme Court in W.P.(Civil) No. 562/2009 and connected matters dated 07.09.2012. During the course of investigation of aforestated crimes, final report was filed in Spl.C.C. Nos.6/2014, 14/2014, 36/2014 and 37/2014. The petitioner was arrested on 04.09.2013 and he was granted bail on 27.11.2014 in Spl.C.C. No. 6/2014.
I have heard Sri S.S. Naganand, learned senior counsel for petitioner and Sri C.H. Jadhav, learned senior counsel for C.B.I.
Sri S.S. Naganand, learned senior counsel for petitioner would submit that first information registered in R.C.14(A)/2012, pursuant to the directions given by the Supreme Court in W.P.(Civil) No. 562/2009 and connected matters dated 07.09.2012, there should have been comprehensive investigation of first informations registered in Spl.C.C. Nos.6/2014, 14/2014, 36/2014 and 37/2014 and the respondent-CBI should have filed a consolidated final report, instead, the respondent-CBI has filed separate final reports in Spl.C.C. Nos.6/2014, 14/2014, 36/2014 and 37/2014 and arrayed petitioner as accused No. 1 in Spl.C.C. No. 6/2014, accused No. 5 in Spl.C.C. No. 14/2014, accused No. 5 in Spl.C.C. No. 36/2014 and accused No. 3 in Spl.C.C. No. 37/2014. In other words, there has been multiplicity of final reports. Based on the first information registered in RC14(A)/2012, the respondent has filed separate final reports in the aforestated cases to harass the petitioner and cause inconvenience to him.
Sri C.H. Jadhav, learned senior counsel for C.B.I., would submit that offences enumerated in the aforestated cases were committed at different places and at different points of time in connivance with different accused. Therefore, separate final reports were filed. This court while exercising its powers under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution read with section 482 Cr.P.C., cannot go into all these details. The final reports in the aforestated cases are filed on the basis of facts, which can be ascertained only after the charges are framed in the aforestated cases. At this stage, this court while exercising its powers under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution read with section 482 Cr.P.C., cannot grant reliefs sought for in the writ petition.
On hearing the learned senior counsel for parties and after going through the records, I find that respondent-CBI during investigation has collected materials to show that aforestated offences were committed at different places, at different points of time, involving different accused along with petitioner herein. Therefore, the request of petitioner to quash the first information registered in RC17(A)/2012 and direct the respondent to treat the final reports filed in Spl.C.C. Nos. 14/2014, 36/2014 and 37/2014 as supplementary charges to the final report filed in Spl.C.C. No. 6/2014 cannot be granted.
Sri S.S. Naganand, learned senior counsel for petitioner would submit that petitioner was arrested during investigation of first information registered in Spl.C.C. No. 6/2014 in R.C.14(A)/2012 on 04.09.2013 and he was released on bail on 27.11.2014. If the petitioner is arrested in relation to first informations registered in Spl.C.C. Nos. 14/2014, 36/2014 and 37/2014, he will have to face the consequences of arrest in the aforestated cases.
Sri C.H. Jadhav, learned senior counsel for CBI would submit that in view of arrest of petitioner in Spl.C.C. No. 6/2014 and C.B.I. has submitted final reports in Spl.C.C. Nos. 14/2014, 36/2014 and 37/2014, petitioner was not arrested during investigation of first informations registered in Spl.C.C. Nos. 14/2014, 36/2014 and 37/2014.
On hearing the learned senior counsel for parties, I find the main apprehension of petitioner is that he would be arrested in Spl.C.C. Nos. 14/2014, 36/2014 and 37/2014 and he will have to face the consequences of his arrest and he will have to remain in judicial custody before he is released on bail in the aforestated cases.
As already stated, the petitioner was arrested in Spl.C.C. No. 6/2014 (RC14(A)/2012). As submitted by the learned senior counsel for C.B.I., the petitioner was not arrested and interrogated during investigation of Spl.C.C. Nos. 14/2014, 36/2014 and 37/2014. In the circumstances, if petitioner were to appear before the jurisdictional courts, pursuant to summons issued in Spl.C.C. Nos. 14/2014, 36/2014 and 37/2014, the learned Special Judges of Special Courts to which aforestated final reports are filed shall necessarily bear in mind that petitioner was already arrested in Spl.C.C. No. 6/2014 and he was in judicial custody from 04.09.2013 to 27.11.2014. The learned Special Judges of Special Courts shall also bear in mind that petitioner was not arrested during investigation of first informations registered in Spl.C.C. Nos. 14/2014, 36/2014 and 37/2014. Above all, the Special Courts have not issued summons to petitioner. If summons are issued in Spl.C.C. Nos. 14/2014, 36/2014 and 37/2014, the petitioner may appear before the jurisdictional Special Courts and seek bail. In such an event, the learned Special Judges of the jurisdictional special courts shall consider the bail applications of petitioner, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking into consideration that petitioner was already in judicial custody in Spl.C.C. No. 6/2014 during period between 04.09.2013 and 27.11.2014.
Sri S.S. Naganand, learned senior counsel for petitioner would submit that petitioner may be given an opportunity to file an application for transfer of aforestated cases to one Special Court at an appropriate stage, to request the Special Court to treat the final reports filed in Spl.C.C. Nos. 14/2014, 36/2014 and 37/2014 as supplementary charges to the final report filed in Spl.C.C. No. 6/2014 and to raise the contentions urged in this petition.
The submission of Sri S.S. Naganand, learned senior counsel for petitioner is recorded.
The petition is accordingly disposed of, reserving such liberty to the petitioner. The contentions urged herein are kept open.