RITESH MILAPCHAND JAIN Vs. STATE BY CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE these two petitions are filed in respect of the same R.C. No. 19(A)/2011 and common question of law and facts are involved in both petitions, they are taken up together to dispose of them by common order. These petitions are filed by the petitioners -accused Nos. 3 and 1 respectively in the respective petitions under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking their release on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 379, 411, 420, 427, 447, 468 and 471 of IPC and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, Section 26 of the Indian Forest Act and Section 21 read with Section 4(1), 4(1)(A) and 23 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, registered in R.C. 19(A)/2011 and pending in Spl. C.C. NO. 165/2013.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case as mentioned in both the petitions are that petitioner in Crl.P. No. 7455/2013 is - accused No. 3. He joined M/s. Deccan Mining Syndicate Private Limited (for short 'M/s. DMSPL') as a Manager (Logistics) in the year 2003 -04 and he was in charge of the company's logistics such as obtaining permits from the DMG Office, indenting, booking rakes in railway, etc. The petitioner in Crl.P. No. 7459/2013 is accused No. 1. He joined as the Managing Director M/s. DMSPL on 1.5.2005. Petitioner -accused No. 3 was promoted as General Manager (Logistics) in the year 2008 -09 and thereafter, in the year 2011, he was elevated to the post of CEO. In fact, in the year 2011, the mining activities were closed and it is only thereafter, the petitioner -accused No. 3 was elevated as the CEO of the Company. He is only an employee of the Company and he is not responsible for the acts of the Company. M/s. DMSPL was incorporated on 25.9.1991 with Sri. S.M. Jain as its Managing Director. During this period, the petitioner -accused No. 1 was neither a Director nor was he in charge of the affairs of M/s. Deccan Mining Syndicate Private Limited.

(3.) I have heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners -accused Nos. 3 and 1 respectively and the learned Senior Counsel and Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent -CBI.