- (1.) Heard Shri Gopal Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri V.A. Ansari, and Samit Gopal, Advocates for the applicants and Shri Anurag Khanna, learned counsel for the C.B.I. The applicants claim themselves to be husband and wife. The date of birth of the applicant no. 1 is 09.09.1925 and is stated to be almost 85 years of age whereas the date of birth of the applicant no. 2 is 15.02.1962. However, this disparity in age is not the subject matter of this bail application and learned counsel urge that the court need not investigate the marvels of human versatility.
(2.) Shri Gopal Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel for the applicants contends that the age of the applicant no. 1 is 85 years as such he deserves to be enlarged on bail. He further submits that there is no occasion for the applicants to either tamper with the evidence or avoid the proceedings of the trial. The case was registered in the year 2007 and now the applicants are sought to be prosecuted under a charge sheet submitted by the C.B.I. dated 12.11.2009. He submits that the provisions of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') contains several provisions and there is ample evidence to indicate that they are maintaining appropriate accounts as such there is no violation of Section 13 so as to make it a punishable offence under Section 23 of the Act. He submits that proper investigation has not been carried out and there is no evidence of any forgery or the applicants having connived or conspired to have mis-utilized their position as trustees of the trust which has been constituted for religious and charitable purposes. He submits that the activities of the trust are in line with the objects of the trust and disciples of the congregation. There are no other criminal antecedents nor is there any chance of the applicants either absconding or violating the law so as to disentitle them for bail. Shri Anurag Khanna, learned counsel for the C.B.I. contends that the applicants themselves have indicated some lapses having been committed as stated in paragraph 17 of the affidavit. He submits that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. M.H. George, 1965 AIR(SC) 722, the applicants are not entitled for bail as they should be taken to have admitted their guilt.
(3.) Shri Gopal Chaturvedi submitted that there is no misuse of the money nor is there any other allegation in the charge sheet which may raise any suspicion or doubt about the activities of the applicants. There are also no other allegations of suspicious activities of their association with any 'Underworld Don' and clarification will have to be sought in this regard. It is undisputed that the accounts have already been seized and a plea has been set up that the local accounts as well as the other accounts were unintentionally mixed up.;