IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6152/2018 BETWEEN :
Sri Vikati Narayan Reddy Managing Director (Board under suspension due to filing in NCLT) M/s. VNR Infrastructures Ltd., 8-2-322/D, Road No.3, Banjara Hills Hyderabad-500 034.
R/o D. No.26-5-448, Benkat Reddy Nagar Gandhi Nagar, Vedayapalem Nellore (A.P) – 524 004.
(By Sri B.V. Acharya, Senior Counsel for Sri K.Suman, Advocate for Sri Pradeep K. Gaonkar, Advocate) AND :
… Petitioner Central Bureau of Investigation BS & FC/Bengaluru Represented by Special Standing Counsel Bengaluru-560 001.
… Respondent (By Sri P. Prasanna Kumar, Standing Counsel) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.DPDSB.2017/RC(E)/2017/CBI/BSFC/BLR/154, for the offence punishable under Section 120-B r/w 420 of Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act.
This Criminal Petition having been heard and reserved on 06.02.2019 coming on for pronouncement of orders this day, the Court made the following:-
O R D E R This petition is filed by accused No.2 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release in Crime DPDSB.2017/RC(E)/2017/CBI/BSFC/BLR.154 for the offences punishable under Section 120B r/w. Section 420 of IPC and Sections 13 (2) r/w. Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. I have heard the learned Senior counsel Sri B.V.Acharya and the learned counsel Sri Pradeep K.Gaunkar for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel Sri P.Prasanna Kumar for respondent-CBI.
3. Before going to consider the submissions made by the learned counsel, I feel it just and proper to briefly state the case of the prosecution to understand the factual situation. One Smt.Pooja Tiku, Deputy General Manager, IFCI Limited, filed a complaint on 3.5.2017 against accused Nos.1 to 8 contending that their Company is a financial institution and a Government of India Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. One Sri V.C.Ramamohan was the Manager, petitioner-accused No.2 and accused No.3 were the Directors and Chief Officers of the said Company and were incharge of the affairs of the said Company. Accused Nos.4 and 5 are Technical Consultants providing technical management development to the Government Industries and Societies. Accused Nos.6 to 8 are the land owning Companies who have mortgaged the loan belonging to them as a security for loans availed by accused No.3 and they have also furnished corporate guarantee for the respective facilities availed by them. It is the further case of the prosecution that the complainant-Company for granting financial assistance for the prospective borrowers, used to secure the security by way of charge creating on immovable property including non-agricultural converted lands, distress sale values, has to be valued at 2.5 times of the loan sought depending upon the loan. In that light, during 2014, petitioner-accused No.2 being the Managing Director of the Company approached the complainant- Company with a request to sanction term loan of Rs.90 Crores for a period of six years repayable in 20 quarterly instalments from the 15th month of date of disbursement for executing there on-going projects. In the meanwhile to meet their urgent fund, petitioner-accused No.2 by virtue of e-mail, dated 18.8.2014 represented the complainant that they would provide security of 2007 to the loan amount and on the basis of the said representation the complainant-Company sanctioned an amount of Rs.205.02 Crores and the same was disbursed.
4. It is further case of the prosecution that as per the letter dated 8.9.2014 a loan of Rs.90 Crores with terms and conditions, was obtained by creation of security by petitioner-accused No.2 and he has also issued a post dated cheques for interest on the principal amount as per the terms and conditions. The repayment has to be done with 20 quarterly instalments of 4.5 Crores each commencing from 15th month from the date of disbursement. One of the conditions was that the valuation of the mortgaged property has to be carried out by two IFCI appointed valuers and the charge shall be borne by the borrowers Company. Accordingly, petitioner-accused No.2 in the name of the Company got mortgaged four properties of Mahabubnagar in Telangana District along with personal guarantee of himself as a promoter and accused Nos.7 and 8, i.e., Corporate guarantee of mortgagers M/s.Indushree Housing Private Limited and M/s.RKR Housing Private Limited were also given. The valuation of the property was done on and around 11.9.2014 by accused NO.4 along with one K.Chandrashekhar, an official of the petitioner-accused No.2. They valued the said property to the tune of Rs.231.59 Crores and accused No.5 along with K.Chandrashekhar, an official of the Company of the petitioner-accused No.2 on 12.9.2014 got valued the same property at the distress sale value of Rs.226.24 Crores. It is the further case of the complainant that on the wrong valuation made by accused Nos.4 and 5 petitioner-accused No.2 induced the complainant- Company to give loan in favour of his Company to the tune of 90 Crores.
5. It is further case of the prosecution that on 15.9.2014 the loan agreement was got executed at Hyderabad by showing the utilization of 90 Crores for various projects and thereafter on 15.9.2014 petitioner- accused No.2 executed deed of personal guarantee along with networth certificate, affidavit, assets and liabilities statement for the loan availed. It is further case of the prosecution that in the month of April 2015, accused Nos.2 and 3 on behalf of their Company approached for another loan of Rs.100 Crores by offering the security of property situated at Rangareddy District and the same was also valued by accused No.4 for distress sale value of Rs.256.39 Crores and accused No.5 has valued the said property at distress sale value of Rs.260.67 Crores. Petitioner-accused No.2 also got executed personal guarantee and other relevant documents though the said property belongs to accused No.6. After obtaining the relevant documents, for the purpose of sanction of Rs.100 Crores, the complainant-Company perused the documents and valuation and disbursed Rs.100 Crores in favour of the Company of accused Nos.2 and 3 and thereafter accused No.2 and his Company did not repay the loan of Rs.90 Crores and Rs.100 Crores in terms of the agreement and thereby it was defaulting in its obligations since 15.9.2015. Thereafter the complainant- Company issued notices and requested for repayment of the loan. In spite of the same, it was not repaid and thereafter the complainant-Company classified the said loan as NPA on 15.3.2016 and issued notice under Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘SARFAESI ACT’ for short) for recovery of the said loan. Notice was also issued on 1.4.2016 under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act for repayment of Rs.205 Crores as on 15.3.2016 with interest. Subsequently, the complainant- Company came to know that accused No.2 in collusion with accused Nos.4 and 5 got valued the said properties in an inflated valuation though the said properties were not fetching that much value by creating and misrepresenting the complainant-Company. It is further alleged that as per the valuation made by BKC Advisors Private Limited, it was valued at 23.84 Crores, whereas the ITCOT Company has valued Mehabubnagar property for Rs.24.45 Crores and property situated at Rangareddy District, was valued at 5.93 Crores. All these facts reveal that accused Nos.4 and 5 in connivance with accused Nos.2 and 3 grossly inflated the valuation and has availed the loan. Accused Nos.4 and 5 valued the said properties at Rs.231.59 Crores and Rs.226.24 Crores respectively. The complainant-Company after noticing massive indiscrepency in the valuation of the properties, came to know that petitioner-accused No.2 with collusion of accused Nos.4 and 5 with an intention to deceive and receive the amount, has played fraud and obtained the loan. On the basis of the said complaint, a case has been registered.
6. It is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel Sri B.V.Acharya that FIR has been filed against eight persons, but subsequently charge sheet was laid only against three persons giving up the remaining accused persons. He further submitted that accused Nos.4 and 5 are the approved valuers of the complainant-Company and they have valued the properties and the said valuation has also been approved by the bank. When the approved valuers have assessed and the bank has accepted and released the amount of loan, then under such circumstances, it is not the fault of accused No.2-petitioner. He further submitted that when the bank got evaluated the property voluntarily without there being any cause, they have given lesser valuation and contended that the earlier valuers have given the inflated figures. There is no role played by the petitioner for the purpose of evaluating the properties and accepting the same by the bank. He further submitted that there is a loss in the business and as such he did not return the loan amount and he became a defaulter and the Company is also a defaulter and Company has also filed insolvency petition by contending that it is unable to pay the loan amount because of the loss in the business, which is not amounting to cheating. He further submitted that the petition under SARFAESI Act is pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. In spite of the same, a case has been registered against the petitioner. He further submitted that during the course of investigation as and when the petitioner was called, he has fully co-operated and has visited the Investigating Officer, but all of a sudden he was taken to custody and as such he has been kept in custody without just cause. He further submitted that already the charge sheet has been filed. Alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. As there are as many as 92 witnesses, to conclude the trial it may take much time. If the petitioner is detained in custody, then it amounts to nothing but pre-trial conviction and detention which is not permissible under law. He further submitted that pending trial if accused is detained ,it causes greater hardship to him. The only object of considering the bail application is whether the accused can be secured for attending the trial and it should not affect the personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution of India that any person should be punished in respect of any matter upon which he has not been convicted and he should not be deprived of the liberty only on the ground that he may tamper with the prosecution evidence. If the prosecution is having any apprehension of abuse, the Court can impose reasonable restriction and release the petitioner on bail. In order to substantiate his contention, he relied upon the decision in the case of Sanjay Chandra, Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2012)1 SCC 40. He also relied upon the decision of this Bench in the case of Sri Krishna Vs. State of Karnataka, in Criminal Petition No.5133/2018, disposed of on 5.10.2018 and submitted that presumption of innocence is a human right and there cannot be presumption of guilt so as to deprive a person of his liberty without an opportunity before an independent forum or Court. In order to substantiate the said contention, he further relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dr.Subhash Kashinath Mahajan Vs. State of Maharashtra & another, reported in AIR 2018 SC 1498. He further submitted that grant or refusal of bail is a discretion of the judge and the same has to be exercised judiciously and in a human way. The judge has to keep in mind the dignity of the accused howsoever poor he might be and the criminal antecedents of the accused persons. In order to substantiate the said contention, he relied upon the decision in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & another, reported in (2018)3 SCC 22. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to release the petitioner on bail.
7. In support of the aforesaid arguments of the learned Senior Counsel, Sri Pradeep K. Gaonkar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that accused No.2 is holding a large extent of converted properties and they fetch more value than the one which has been evaluated. He further submitted that no allegation of forgery or cheating was made in the charge sheet material and even it is not the case of the prosecution that the valuation was got done by the accused No.2-petitioner. All the transactions are civil in nature and no criminal intention can be gathered in the alleged act of the petitioner. He further submitted that if there is no prima facie case, no question of considering the other circumstances. In order to substantiate the said contention, he relied upon the decision in the case of Bhagirathsinh Judeja Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in AIR 1984 SC 372. He further submitted that the charge sheet has been filed one year back and the petitioner is languishing behind the bars without any cause. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to release the petitioner on bail.
8. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent vehemently argued and submitted that the petitioner-accused No.2 is involved in economic offence, which itself constitutes a separate class which needs to be visited with a different approach in consideration of bail application. Such offences are deep rooted conspiracies involving huge loss of public funds and they are considered to be grave offences which will be having impact on economy of the country as a whole. He further submitted accused No.2 is really not a partner. The valuation reports issued by MITCON in respect of two sets of immovable properties are purportedly issued under the signature of one Sri.G.V.Krishnareddy showing him as a partner of accused No.1-Company. The investigation revealed that the said G.V.Krishnareddy is not a partner of the Company and he never visited the sites and did not carry out the said valuation on behalf of MITCON. It is further submitted that the signature of the G.V.Krishnareddy has been forged and submitted by MITCON to IFCI Limited, which itself goes to show that fraud has been played in this behalf. He further submitted that the investigation is still in progress and suspected other employees have to be interrogated. Since the petitioner is a sitting MLC and he is highly influential person, if he is released on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and even he may abscond and may not be available for trial. He further submitted that in order to get the inflated valuation, he paid an amount of Rs.5.6 Crores as a bribe and the said amount has been kept in fixed deposit by accused Nos.4 and 5, which itself clearly goes to show that the fraud has been played by the present petitioner. He further submitted that since the petitioner is MLC, he should have an absolute integrity, but he has fabricated the documents and signature, thereby he has committed the alleged offence which is punishable with imprisonment for life. He further submitted that whenever the loan has been obtained, the value of the property should be 2.5 times higher than the value of the loan, but the records indicates that accelerated valuation has been made though the properties are of lesser value and they are not in terms of the said condition. At this juncture, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may take away the said money and abscond and it becomes very difficult for the complainant-Company to recover the said amount. He further submitted that the offences which have been levelled against the petitioner are deep rooted conspiracies. The Court while granting the bail has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, evidence and severity of the punishment and the character and other circumstances. In order to substantiate the said contention, he relied upon the decision in the case of Y.S.Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in 2013(7) SCC 439. He further submitted that when the said investigation is in progress, at this juncture, if the accused is released on bail it is going to hamper the investigation and he can revive his right of bail after filing of charge sheet. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
9. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent and perused the other materials and decisions quoted by both the sides.
10. Before going to consider the contentions, it is relevant to note that it is well settled principle of law that presumption of innocence is a human right and there cannot be presumption of guilt so as to deprive a person of his liberty without an opportunity before an independent forum or Court. It has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dr.Subhash Kashinath Mahajan Vs. State of Maharashtra & another (quoted supra).
At paragraph-65, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under:-
“65. Presumption of innocence is a human right. No doubt, placing of burden of proof on accused in certain circumstances may be permissible but there cannot be presumption of guilt so as to deprive a person of his liberty without an opportunity before an independent forum or court. In Noor Aga v. State of Punjab, it was observed:
Article14(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It, however, cannot per se be equated with the fundamental right and liberty adumbrated in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It, having regard to the extent thereof, would not militate against other statutory provisions (which, of course, must be read in the light of the constitutional guarantees as adumbrated in Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India).
xxxx xxxx xxxx 35. A right to be presumed innocent, subject to the establishment of certain foundational facts and burden of proof, to a certain extent, can be placed on an accused. It must be construed having regard to the other international conventions and having regard to the fact that it has been held to be constitutional. Thus, a statute may be constitutional but a prosecution thereunder may not be held to be one. Indisputably, civil liberties and rights of citizens must be upheld.
xxxx xxxx xxxx 43. The issue of reverse burden vis-a-vis the human rights regime must also be noticed. The approach of the common law is that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove a person guilty. Indisputably, this common law principle was subject to parliamentary legislation to the contrary.
The concern now shown worldwide is that Parliaments had frequently been making inroads on the basic presumption of innocence. Unfortunately, unlike other countries no systematic study has been made in India as to how many offences are triable in the court where the legal burden is on the accused. In the United Kingdom it is stated that about 40% of the offences triable in the Crown Court appear to violate the presumption. (See “The Presumption of Innocence in English Criminal Law”, 1996, CRIM.L.REV.306, at p.309.) 44. In Article 11(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) it is stated:
“Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law…”
Similar provisions have been made in Article 6.2 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1950) and Article 14.2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966).
xxxx xxxx xxxx 47. We may notice that Sachs, J. in State v. Coetzee [1997(2)LRC 593] explained the significance of the presumption of innocence in the following terms:
“There is a paradox at the heart of all criminal procedure in that the more serious the crime and the greater the public interest in securing convictions of the guilty, the more important do constitutional protections of the accused become. The starting point of any balancing enquiry where constitutional rights are concerned must be that the public interest in ensuring that innocent people are not convicted and subjected to ignominy and heavy sentences massively outweighs the public interest in ensuring that a particular criminal is brought to book… Hence the presumption of innocence, which serves not only to protect a particular individual on trial, but to maintain public confidence in the enduring integrity and security of the legal system. Reference to the prevalence and severity of a certain crime therefore does not add anything new or special to the balancing exercise. The perniciousness of the offence is one of the givens, against which the presumption of innocence is pitted from the beginning, not a new element to be put into the scales as part of a justificatory balancing exercise. If this were not so, the ubiquity and ugliness argument could be used in relation to murder, rape, car-jacking, housebreaking, drug-smuggling, corruption…. the list is unfortunately almost endless, and nothing would be left of the presumption of innocence, save, perhaps, for its relic status as a doughty defender of rights in the most trivial of cases.”
In view of the above, an accused is certainly entitled to show to the Court, if he apprehends arrest, that case of the complainant was motivated. If it can be so shown there is no reason that the Court is not able to protect liberty of such a person. There cannot be any mandate under the law for arrest of an innocent. The law has to be interpreted accordingly.”
11. It is well settled principles of law that the primary purpose of bail in criminal case is to relieve the accused of imprisonment and at the same time to keep the accused constructively in the custody of the Court assuring that he will submit to the jurisdiction of the Court and be in attendance thereon whenever his presence is required. But at the same time, the Court has to keep in mind the acquisitions made as against the accused and the gravity of the offence with which he has been charged.
12. Grant or refusal of a bail is entirely discretionary and discretion should depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. This proposition of law has been laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694. At paragraph-112 of the said decision, it has been observed as to what are the parameters that can be considered into while dealing with the bail application, which read thus:-
“112. The following factors and parameters can be taken into consideration while dealing with the anticipatory bail:
(i) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made;
(ii) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a court in respect of any cognizable offence;
(iii) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice;
(iv) The possibility of the accused’s likelihood to repeat similar or other offences;
(v) Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her;
(vi) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people;
(vii) The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which the accused is implicated with the help of Sections 34 and 149 of the Penal Code, 1860 the court should consider with even greater care and caution because overimplication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern;
(viii) While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors, namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused;
(ix) The court to consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant;
(x) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail.”
13. Keeping in view the above said proposition of law and other aspects, let me consider the case of the prosecution on hand. It is the allegation of the prosecution accused No.1 is the Company, accused No.2 is the Manager, accused No.3 is the Director and Chief Officer, accused Nos.4 and 5 are the Technical Consultancy Organisation. Accused Nos.6 to 8 are owning the Company who have mortgaged the loan belonging to them as security for the loans availed by accused No.3 and have furnished corporate guarantee for the respective facilities secured by the accused. It is also the case of the prosecution that if any property is given as a security by way of charge to borrow the financial assistance from the complainant-Company, the distressed sale value has to be valued at 2.5 times of the loan sought for, depending upon the loan. It is further case of the prosecution that accused No.2 being the Managing Director of accused No.1-Company approached the complainant for sanction of a term loan of Rs.90 Crores and subsequently he misrepresented the complainant-Company stating that they would provide prevailed security to the loan amount and got sanctioned Rs.205.2 Crores and thereafter they failed to repay the said amount. It is further case of the prosecution that there is an accelerated evaluation of the property by accused Nos.4 and 5 and even they have induced the complainant-Company to so as to give the loan amount to accused No.2. It is the submission of the prosecution that accused No.4 has valued distress sale value at the rate of 256.39 Crores and accused No.5 valued the distress sale value of Rs.260.67 Crores, though the said properties are not fetching so much distressed sale value, thereby they have played fraud.
14. Though it is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the value which has been made in respect of the property is a large extent of property and it is converted land and the valuation made by the valuators has been accepted by the bank and they are the employees of the bank and a case has also been covered under SARFAESI Act and there is no allegation of forgery and other things. But it is a matter which has to be considered and appreciated only when the final charge sheet is filed. At this pre-matured stage, it cannot be said that the documents have not been fabricated and no fraud has been played by the petitioner.
15. Even records would prima facie disclose that accused No.2-petitioner herein conspired with accused Nos.4 and 5 and by bribing them, obtained inflated valuation certificate for the purpose of collateral security against the said loan. As to under what circumstances accused Nos.4 and 5 received the bribe is not explained by the accused, which itself creates a doubt about the bona fides of the petitioner. Records disclose that the said amount has been paid by petitioner-accused No.2. If they are employees of the complainant-Company. There is no question of he paying money in Crores. They have also not come up with any explanation. It appears from the records that accused No.2-petitioner in collusion with other accused persons obtained inflated value of the properties to give them as a collateral security which is sinister attempt or strategy adopted by the petitioner for obtaining the loan. Though it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is a civil dispute and petitioner was unable to pay the loan amount and even the proceedings have been initiated under the SARFAESI Act for recovery of the debt, but at the same time, if the entire material is perused the intention of the petitioner goes to show that in collusion with other accused persons he fabricated the documents and cheated the Company. It is submitted during the course of arguments by the learned counsel for the respondent that still investigation is in progress and accused is a highly influential person, if he is released on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence. Admittedly, the petitioner is the MLC and investigation is still pending. Though the alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, by taking into consideration the nature of the accusations and the petitioner has been involved in an economic offence having deep rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds, it has to be viewed seriously, that too when charge sheet has not yet been filed. This proposition of law has also been supported with the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Y.S.Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (quoted supra). At paragraphs-34, 35 and 36, it has been observed as under:-
“34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country.
35. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations.
36.Taking note of all these facts and the huge magnitude of the case and also the request of CBI asking for further time for completion of the investigation in filing the charge-sheet(s), without expressing any opinion on the merits, we are of the opinion that the release of the appellant at this stage may hamper the investigation. However, we direct CBI to complete the investigation and file the charge-sheet(s) within a period of 4 months from today. Thereafter, as observed in the earlier order dated 5.10.2012, the appellant is free to renew his prayer for bail before the trial court and if any such petition is filed, the trial court is free to consider the prayer for bail independently on its own merits without being influenced by dismissal of the present appeal.”
16. Taking note of the ratio laid down in the above decision and the facts, so also the magnitude of the case involved and by considering the gravity of the offence and the economy of the country as a whole, I feel that at this stage it is not a fit case to release the petitioner- accused No.2 on bail. However, the petitioner is at liberty to renew his right for bail after the final report is filed. In the event of any such petition is filed by the petitioner the trial Court is free to consider the prayer of the petitioner for bail independently on its own merits without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order.
With the aforesaid observations, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE *ck/-