- (1.) The petitioner is in custody since 23rd February, 2013 in connection with a case relating to offences under Sections 120B/420/406 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 4/6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act 1978. Initially, the investigation was started by the State police and subsequently, in terms of a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Subrata Chattoraj Vs. Union of India & Ors., 2014 8 SCC 768, the case was transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation.
(2.) This judgment was delivered on 9th May, 2014. Charge sheet has been filed on 22nd October, 2014, adding Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. On 4th September, 2014, the petitioner was shown arrested in this case by the Central Bureau of Investigation and was taken into judicial custody on the prayer of the CBI. The petitioner had earlier applied for bail on 22nd January, 2015 (CRM No. 17826 of 2014), which was rejected by the coordinate bench of this Court.
(3.) Mr. Kapoor, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Ayan Bhattacharjee, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that upon filing of charge sheet there is no further reason for detaining the petitioner. The petitioner is an M.P., a member of the Rajya Sabha having his family and residence in Kolkata and there is no likelihood of his fleeing from justice. According to him, there cannot be apprehension of tampering with evidence, as charge sheet has already been filed. He has referred to an order passed by a coordinate bench in respect of a co-accused in a case dealing with the same scam, being CRM 335 of 2015. The petitioner in that case, Rajat Kumar Majumder, has been enlarged on bail on 16th February, 2015. Referring to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gudikanti Narasimhulu & Ors. Vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, 1978 1 SCC 240, Mr. Kapoor has argued that considering the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, an accused cannot be kept under detention for an unlimited period pending trial. He has also cited two authorities, Gurcharan Singh & Ors. Vs. State (Delhi Administration), 1978 1 SCC 118 and Susanta Ghosh Vs. State of West Bengal, 2012 2 SCC 680 in which the factors for considering pre-trial bail application were specified to be likelihood of fleeing from justice and possibility of tampering with evidence or investigation. According to Mr. Kapoor, both these factors weigh in favour of the petitioner in this case. On the aspect of there being earlier rejection of bail application of the petitioner by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, Mr. Kapoor's contention is, relying on another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Babu Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P., 1978 1 SCC 579, that an order rejecting an application for bail does not, by itself, preclude consideration for bail on a subsequent occasion, giving more details, further developments and different considerations. These legal principles have been re-affirmed in a more recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2012 1 SCC 40.;