MATANG SINH vs CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Petitioner has renewed his prayer for bail before this Court and it is submitted that he is in custody for about three years.

Mr. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since rejection of bail by this Court on 09.09.2016, investigation so far as the petitioner is concerned is complete and his client may be granted bail as there is bleak prospect of the trial commencing in the near future. It is further submitted that the petitioner is suffering from grave ailments and further detention of the petitioner may endanger his life.

In the course of hearing, affidavit had been filed on behalf of CBI wherein it was averred that investigation is in progress with regard to money trail and the larger conspiracy in respect of the role played by the regulators in the crime. It was specifically pleaded therein joint interrogation of the petitioner and other co-accused persons were necessary for the purpose of verifying facts.

On 20.12.2017, learned senior counsel for CBI submitted that joint interrogation of the petitioner and other accused persons is over. However, steps are being taken to trace out the money trail and obtain sanction for institution of prosecution against the regulators.

Today report is filed on behalf of CBI wherein it is stated that money trail so as transactions through bank channels are complete. However, cash transactions have not been traced out as yet. Further investigation in such area is contemplated. Report is kept on record.

We have considered the prayer for bail of the petitioner keeping in mind the gravity of the allegations which relate to a financial scam running to crores perpetrated by a chit fund company which has resulted in duping of innumerable depositors of their hard earned monies. Petitioner is neither a director nor an office bearer of the said chit fund company. Allegation against the petitioner is to the effect that he conspired with the principal accuseds running the chit fund company and assisted them to expand their business in the North Eastern States by entering into commercial arrangements so as to enable them to invest in media and other related businesses. While it is the contention of CBI that such arrangements had been undertaken in order to give a rosy picture to the fraudulent activities of the chit fund company to dupe the investors, it has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that such transactions were bona fide arrangements between the petitioners and by the owners of the chit fund company to enable the latter to expand into businesses into the electronic media and other allied areas. It is a matter to be decided in the course of trial as to which version is correct. However, it cannot be denied that there are prima facie materials connecting the petitioner with the activities of the principal accused company and/or its directors in expanding its activities in various parts of the country. Investigation in these aspects are over and the monetary transactions by and between the principal accused company and the petitioner''s firm have been explored. Joint interrogations between the petitioner and the co-accused persons have also been concluded.

Liberty had been given to the petitioner by the Apex Court vide its order dated 06.11.2015 to renew his prayer for bail after investigation is complete.

In exercise of such liberty, the petitioner had unsuccessfully approached this Court for bail on 09.09.2016 and 23.03.2017. Since the rejection of the aforesaid prayers for bail, we note that there has been substantial progress in the investigation and joint interrogation of the petitioner with the co-accused persons have been done. Money trail through bank channels have also been effectively traced out. Residual aspect of investigation relate to seeking sanction from appropriate authority for initiation of prosecution against the regulators and other public officers. There is also some contemplation of further investigation viz, cash transactions between the parties. With regard to the aspect of seeking sanction for prosecution of regulators, we are of the opinion that such exercise does not relate to the petitioner. Furthermore, there is no cogent material on record showing any cash transaction between the petitioner and other accused persons which require to be worked out. Mere hypothetical contemplation of further investigation on such score appears to be a vague conjecture. Hence, we are of the opinion that although some aspects of investigation relating to other co-accused persons may be outstanding investigation against the present petitioner appears to be substantially complete. Petitioner has been charged with offences which, though grave in nature, do not ordinarily call for indeterminate sentence. Petitioner is in custody for about three years and the investigations/further investigation which had continued for three years and is substantially complete qua the petitioner. Moreover, immediate commencement and/or conclusion of prosecution appears to be a far cry. A balance has to be struck between the right to liberty of an undertrial on the one hand and the gravity of the offence and its impact on the society on the other hand.

In Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40, the Apex Court held as follows:- "21....the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.

From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some unconvicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, "necessity" is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances."

The Court further held as follows:- "42. When the undertrial prisoners are detained in jail custody to an indefinite period, Article 21 of the Constitution is violated. Every person, detained or arrested, is entitled to speedy trial, the question is: whether the same is possible in the present case.

There are seventeen accused persons. Statements of witnesses run to several hundred pages and the documents on which reliance is placed by the prosecution, are voluminous. The trial may take considerable time and it looks to us that the appellants, who are in jail, have to remain in jail longer than the period of detention, had they been convicted. It is not in the interest of justice that the accused should be in jail for an indefinite period. No doubt, the offence alleged against the appellants is a serious one in terms of alleged huge loss to the State exchequer, that, by itself, should not deter us from enlarging the appellants on bail when there is no serious contention of the respondent that the accused, if released on bail, would interfere with the trial or tamper with evidence..."

Keeping the aforesaid aspects in mind and in view of the fact that investigation against the petitioner had progressed since the last rejection of bail by this Court in March, 2017 and is substantially complete, we are of the opinion that the petitioner has been able to make out a case for favourable re-consideration of his prayer for bail in the aforesaid matrix of the case. We also note that the petitioner does not have any other criminal antecedent. Accordingly, we are inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, however, subject to strict conditions.

Accordingly, we direct that the petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 1,00,00,000/-(Rupees one crore) with five sureties of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs) each and upon executing a bond to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs) by one of his relations, namely, Rupendra Nath Singh to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, South 24 Parganas, subject to the condition that he shall not leave the jurisdiction of State of West Bengal without the express permission of this Court and shall meet the HOD, EO-IV once in a month until further orders and shall appear before the trial court on every date of hearing and shall not intimidate witnesses nor tamper with evidence in any manner whatsoever or commit similar offence in future.

In the event he fails to do so without justifiable cause, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel his bail in accordance with law without further reference to this court.

The application for bail is, thus, allowed.