1/20

ba177012

Tilak

CRIMINALAPPELLATEJURISDICTION

rt

INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJUDICATUREATBOMBAY

C
ou

CRIMINALBAILAPPLICATIONNO.1770OF2012

DR.NARENDRAK.AMIN

...

Versus

APPLICANT

ig
h

UNIONOFINDIA,THROUGHCBI
ANDANOTHER

...

RESPONDENTS

ba
y

Mr.Ram Jethmalani, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Mahesh Jethmalani,

Advocate i/b Mr.Pranav Badheka, Ms.Chaitra Pawar, Mr.Nilesh
TribhuvanandJagdishRamani,Advocatesfortheapplicant.
Mr.H.S.VenegavkarAdvocate with Mr.Rajesh Desai and Abhishek
Arora,Advocatesfortherespondentno.1CBI.

om

CORAM :

ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.

ORDER RESERVED : 20th FEBRUARY 2013.

ORDER PRONOUNCED:

5th MARCH 2013.

ORALORDER:

Theapplicantapoliceman,whowasworkingasDy.

Superintendent of Police, City Crime Branch, Ahmedabad at the

::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2014 12:35:28 :::

2/20

ba177012

material time is the Accused no.12 in the case arising out of

rt

R.C.No.BS1/S/2010/0004 dated 1 February 2010 registered with

C
ou

CBIPoliceStation,Mumbai. Therearetotally19accusedinthe

said case. The allegation against the applicant and the other
accused is that they have committed offences punishable under
section120BoftheIPCreadwithsections365IPC,368IPC,302

ig
h

IPCand201oftheIPC.

ThecaseoftheInvestigatingAgencyis,inbrief,that

the Police Officials of Anti Terrorist Squad (ATS) Gujarat and

Special Task Force (STF) Rajasthan, entered into a criminal

ba
y

conspiracy to abduct one Sohrabuddin Shaikh (deceased) from

AndhraPradeshinordertokillhim. ThatthesaidSohrabuddin
Shaikh, who had some criminal background, was attempting to

om

extort monies from some businessmen, who had approached

politicalleadersfortheirprotection,anditwasthereafterplanned

that Sohrabuddin should be got killed. It was planned that he

shouldbeshownashavingdiedinanencounterwiththepolice.
Pursuanttothisconspiracy,thepoliceofficialsfromRajasthanand
Gujarat abducted Sohrabuddin, his wife Kausarbi and one more
personfromAndhraPradesh.Sohrabuddin,Kausarbiandthesaid

::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2014 12:35:28 :::

3/20

ba177012

otherpersonwereconfinedatafarmhousenearAhmedabadfor

rt

sometime,andlateron,Sohrabuddinwaskilledbythepolice. As

C
ou

preplanned, it was projected as if he had been killed in an

encounterwiththepolice.Preparationhadalreadybeenmadefor
lodging of a false First Information Report to the effect that
Sohrabuddin had come to Ahmedabad for killing a prominent

ig
h

politicalleader,andthatSohrabuddinwastodothiswiththeco
operationandhelpofPakistanBasedIntelligenceAgencyISI,and
TerroristOutfit LaskareToyeba. Astorywascookedupthatsince

thepolicewereinreceiptofthisinformation,theyhadkeptawatch
ataparticularpointontheroadbywhichSohrabuddin,asperthe

ba
y

informationreceived,wastocome.That,whenSohrabuddincame
to the said place on a motorcycle, he was asked to stop by the
police,buthedidnotrespondtothesaidcallandopenedfireon

om

police. Thepolice officersfiredinretaliation,andin thisfiring,

Sohrabuddin fell down on being hit by the bullets fired by the

police.

Areporttothiseffectviz.thatapersonwhohadcome

to kill a prominent political leader with the cooperation of the

PakistanBasedIntelligenceAgencyetc.,waskilledinanencounter

::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2014 12:35:28 :::

4/20

ba177012

withthepolice,wasregisteredwiththeAntiTerroristSquad(ATS),

rt

Gujaratinrespectofoffencespunishableundersections120BIPC,

C
ou

121IPC,121AIPC,122IPC,307IPC,186IPC,24oftheIPC,vide
C.R.No.5 of 2005 of ATS Police Station. The said case was

investigatedintobyAccusedno.4MukeshbhaiParmar,workingas
Dy.SuperintendentofPoice,ATSGujarat,atthematerialtime,who

ig
h

filedanabatedSummaryReport.

One Rubabuddin brother of the deceased

SohrabuddinaddressedalettertotheHon'bletheChiefJustice
of India alleging that Sohrabuddin was in reality abducted from

ba
y

Andhra Pradesh and killed by Gujarat Police, and that

Sohrabuddin'swifeKausarbiwasalsomissing.

om

TheSupremeCourtofIndiadirectedtheGujarat

policetoinvestigateintothematter,pursuanttowhichthematter

wasinquiredinto,videPreliminaryInquiryNo.66of2006.Onthe
basis of the findings of the preliminary inquiry conducted,
investigationofthecasewastakenoverbyCID(Crimes)Gujarat.
Aftercompletionofinvestigation,theCID(Crimes)GujaratPolice
filedachargesheeton16January2007against13policeofficers

::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2014 12:35:28 :::

5/20

ba177012

i.e. Accused Nos.1 to 13, in the Court of Chief Metropolitan

rt

Magistrate,Ahmedabad.ThesaidRubabuddin,wasapparentlynot

C
ou

satisfiedwiththeinquirythatwasgoingon,andhadfiledaWrit
PetitionbearingNo.6of2007beforetheSupremeCourtofIndiaon
22January2007.Byanorderdated12January2010passedinthe
said petition, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court of India

ig
h

directed the CBI to investigate into the matter of the said fake
encounterofSohrabuddinandthemissingofhiswifeSmt.Kausarbi.

After investigation, the CBI collected some

furthermaterialandimplicatedsomemorepersons,inadditionto

ba
y

the13accusedagainstwhomchargesheethadbeenfiled. These
newly added accused persons included Shri Amitbhai Shah, who

om

wasthentheMinisterofState,intheGujaratGovernment.

By an order dated 27 September 2012 passed in

CriminalAppealNo.1503of2012withTransferPetition(Criminal)
No.44 of 2011, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court of India
transferred the said case to Mumbai. After the transfer, the
applicant, bythepresentapplication,hasapproachedthisCourt
prayingforhisreleaseonbail.

::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2014 12:35:28 :::

6/20

I have heard Mr.Ram Jethmalani, the learned Senior

rt

ba177012

counselfortherespondentno.1CBI.

C
ou

Counselfortheapplicant.IhaveheardMr.H.S.Venegavkar,learned

Thisapplicationwas heardandwasbeingconsidered

ig
h

alongwithapplicationfiledbyacoaccusedMukeshbhaiParmar
Accusedno.4andotheraccused.Theapplicationfiledbythesaid
Mukeshbhai Parmar Accused no.1 has been rejected be me.

(Criminal Bail Application No.1670 of 2012). So far as the

applicantisconcerned,however,itwasthoughtthathisprayerfor

ba
y

bailcouldbedecidedinaproperandmoresatisfactorymanneronly
afterascertainingthecorrectnessofthecontentionsraisedabouthis
badhealth,asthatwasastronggroundcanvassedinsupportof

om

bail.Areportwithrespecttothehealthconditionoftheapplicant,
whohasbeenhospitalizedwastherefore,calledfromthe Civil

Hospital,Ahmedabad,whichhasbeendulyreceivednow.

10

Mr.Ram Jethmalani, the learned Senior Counsel

submittedthatthereisnomaterialagainsttheapplicanttoshowhis
involvement in the alleged offences. He submitted that there is

::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2014 12:35:28 :::

7/20

ba177012

absolutelynothingtoshowthattheapplicantwasinvolvedinthe

rt

conspiracytokillSohrabuddin.Mr.Jethmalanipointedoutthatthe

C
ou

conspiracy to murder Sohrabuddin was allegedly hatched by the

policeofficersfromtheATSGujaratandSTFRajasthan,andthat
theapplicantwasnotworkingwiththeATSGujarat.Hesubmitted
thattheonlymaterialagainsttheapplicantisthathewaspresentat

ig
h

the time when the dead body of Kausarbi was cremated. He

submittedthat,atbest,theapplicantcanbesaidtohavedestroyed
the evidence of the commission of an offence, and cannot be

connectedwiththemurderofSohrabuddinorevenKausarbior
withtheconspiracytomurderSohrabuddinand/orKausarbi. He

ba
y

alsopointedoutthattheapplicantisincustodyforaperiodofmore
than five years, and is presently suffering from serious health
problems. He also reminded the Court that the only primary

om

considerations,atthisstage,wouldbewhetherthereleaseofthe
applicantonbailislikelytoaffecttheinvestigationand/orthetrial

tobeheld,andwhetherhewouldbeavailabletofacethetrial.He
submitted that there is absolutely no possibility of the applicant
absconding, or not making himself available for the trial,
particularlyinviewofhisillhealth,andthatconsideringallthese
aspects,theapplicantdeservestobereleasedonbail.

::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2014 12:35:28 :::

8/20

Mr.Venegavkar, learned counsel for the Respondent

rt

11

ba177012

C
ou

no.1,ontheotherhand,submittedthattheapplicantwasinvolved
notonlyindisposingofthedeadbodyofKausarbi,butalsointhe
murderofKausarbi.Hesubmittedthatthereissufficientmaterial
toshowhisinvolvementintheallegedoffences.Hesubmittedthat

ig
h

the applicant, at the material point of time, was in telephonic

contactwithAmitbhaiShah,whowasatthematerialtimeaHome
MinisterofGujaratwhoisalsoanaccusedinthiscase(Accused

No.16).Healsosubmittedthattheapplicantwasinitiallygranted
bailbytheCourtofSessions,butthebailwascancelledbytheHigh

ba
y

Court of Gujarat, and this cancellation was upheld by Their

Lordships of the Supreme Court of India. According to him,
therefore, there being no change in the circumstances, a

om

reconsiderationofthematterwasnotnecessaryatall.

12

Ihavecarefullyconsideredthematter.

13

Ihavegonethroughthepolicereport/chargesheetand

thedocumentsaccompanyingthesame,whichhavebeenreferred
tobythelearnedcounselfortheparties.

::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2014 12:35:28 :::

9/20

Therecanbenodoubtthatthereissufficientmaterial

rt

14

ba177012

C
ou

inthepolicereportandtheaccompanyingdocumentstoindicate

thatindeedthepoliceofficialsofATSGujaratandSTFRajasthan
had entered into a criminal conspiracy to abduct the said
Sohrabuddin Shaikh from Andhra Pradesh in order to kill him.

ig
h

ThereisalsosufficientmaterialtoindicatethatSohrabuddinand
hiswifewereabducted,broughttoGujarat,keptconfinedatafarm
housenearAhmedabadforsometime. Thereisalsomaterialto

indicate that arrangements for procuring the farm house had

alreadybeenmade,andassuch,thekillingwasclearlypreplanned.

ba
y

WhatwastobeshownintherecordsafterSohrabuddinwouldbe
killedhadalsobeen,apparently,preplannedandasplannedafalse
First Information Report vide C.R.No.5 of 2005, was registered.

om

However,whatistheallegationagainsttheapplicant,andwhatis
the material by whichitis supported, must be examined, in the

contextoftheprayerforbail.

15

It is a fact that the applicant does not seem to be

involved in the abduction of Sohrabuddin and Kausarbi from

AndhraPradesh.Thereisnomaterialtoshowthathewasawareof

::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2014 12:35:28 :::

10/20

ba177012

the conspiracytokill Sohrabuddin. Thereisalsonomaterialto

rt

showthattheapplicanttookpartinkillingSohrabuddin,orwas

C
ou

presentatthesceneoftheoffencewhenSohrabuddinwaskilled.
Sincethisisconcededratherthisisnottheallegationagainstthe
applicantatallIdonotfinditnecessarytodiscussthisaspectof
thematteranyfurther. Theapplicantisallegedtobeinvolvedin

ig
h

the killing of Kausarbi. Kausarbi's dead body was cremated in

villageIllol.AccordingtotheInvestigatingAgency,thedeadbody
ofKausarbiwascarriedtotheplacewhereitwascrematedinajeep

of ATS in which coaccused Choube (Acucsed No.6) and the

ba
y

applicantweresitting.

16

Mr.Jethmalani, the learned Senior Counsel submitted

thatwhatwasactuallytoldtoSohrabuddinandKausarbi,andwhat

om

wastherepresentationmadetothemonthebasisofwhichthey
were being brought from Andhra Pradesh, is not clear from the

investigation that has been carried out. He also submitted that

initiallytherewasnoconspiracyofmurderingKausarbi,andinfact,
itisbecauseoftheinsistenceofKausarbithatshewouldaccompany
herhusbandthatshewasbroughttoGujarat. Hesubmittedthat
thereisabsolutelynothingtoshowthatwhen,andinwhatmanner,

::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2014 12:35:28 :::

11/20

ba177012

andbywhom,Kausarbiwaskilled. Indeed,thereissubstancein

rt

this contention which, in fact, has not been controverted by the

17

C
ou

learnedcounselfortheCBI.

Thereisnothingtoshowthattheapplicantwasaware

of the conspiracy to kill Sohrabuddin before he was brought at

ig
h

AhmedabadfromAndhraPradesh.Thereisnothingtoindicatethat
hehadtakenanypartinthedetentionofSohrabuddinandKausarbi
at the farm house, and in fact, fake encounter of Sohrabuddin

whichtookplaceasplanned. Infact,atthecostofrepetition,it
maybeemphasizedthat,thatisnottheallegationatallagainstthe

ba
y

applicant. A perusalofthepolicereportwhichdescribes theroles

attributed to various accused persons, indicates that the applicant

om

cameinpictureonlyafterthefakeencounterofSohrabuddin.

18

ThecaseoftheInvestigatingAgencyisthatKausarbi

whowasearlierkeptinDishafarmhouse,wastakenawaybythe
ATSOfficersofGujaratPoliceinaFronticartoArhamfarm.There
is a vague assertion in the chargesheet that she was thereafter,
eliminatedbythe'accusedpersons',andthatherbodywasburntin
thevillage'Illol'.

::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2014 12:35:28 :::

12/20

Theonlypreciseallegationagainsttheapplicantisthat

rt

19

ba177012

C
ou

hehadbroughtthedeadbodyofKausarbitotheplacewhereitwas
eventuallycremated.Thereismaterialtoshowthatthedeadbody
ofKausarbiwasbroughtinajeepinwhichtheapplicantwasalso

sitting. ThelearnedcounselfortheRespondentno.1specifically

ig
h

pointedoutinparagraphnos.28and29ofthepolicereport/charge
sheetforshowingtheroleattributedtotheapplicantinthealleged
offences; and the perusal of the contents of these paragraphs

indicatesthattheonlymaterialagainsttheapplicantisthathewas
sittinginthejeepinwhichthedeadbodyofKausarbihadbeen

ba
y

kept.Infact,thelearnedcounselfortheRespondentno.1conceded
that except this, and the fact that he was in touch with the co
accusedAmitbhaiShah(Accusedno.16),whowasatthematerial

om

time, the Home Minister of Gujarat, there is no other material

againsttheapplicant.

20

Mr.RamJethmalani,inthisregard,submittedthatthe

telephoniccontactsbetweenthecoaccusedAmitbhaiShahandthe
applicant cannot be construed as a circumstance implicating the
applicant,atall.Hesubmittedthat,atthematerialtime,therewas

::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2014 12:35:28 :::

13/20

ba177012

acaseofkidnappingandinconnectionwiththatcase,theapplicant

rt

hadtospeakonanumberofoccasionswithAmitbhaiShah,who

C
ou

wasthen,theHomeMinister. Hepointedoutthattherewasno
materialtoindicateastowhatweretheconversations.

21

Mr.Jethmalani,the learnedSenior Counselcontended

ig
h

thatthereliabilityoftheonlymaterialagainsttheapplicanti.e.
thattheapplicanthadtravelledinthesamevehicleinwhichthe
deadbodyofKausarbiwasbroughttotheplaceofcremationis

doubtfulevenatthisstage.Hepointedoutthatthereareanumber
of discrepancies in the material collected during investigation in

ba
y

thatregard.

22

Ideclinetogodeeperintothematteratthisstagefor

om

making an attempt to judge the prima facie acceptability or

reliabilityofthematerialagainsttheapplicant.However,evenafter

takingthematerialasitis,therearesomeglaringaspectsofthe
matter,whichcannotbeoverlooked. Thereis nomaterialinthe
chargesheet to indicate by whom, when and in what manner
Kausarbiwsactuallykilled. AtwhichplacethebodyofKausarbi
was put in the jeep, is also not revealed. At which place the

::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2014 12:35:28 :::

14/20

ba177012

applicantboardedthesaidjeep,isalsonotrevealed. Ithasbeen

rt

concededthattheinvestigationthathasbeencarriedoutdoesnot

C
ou

throw any light on these aspects. Therefore, the question is

whetherintheabsenceofanylightbeingthrownontheseaspects,
andonly fromthefactthattheapplicanthadbroughtthedead
bodyofKausarbialongwithhimtotheplacewhereKausarbiwas

ig
h

cremated,aninferencethattheapplicantwasconcernedwith,and
involvedinthemurderofKausarbican,primafacie,bedrawn.This
seemstobedoubtful,keepinginmindthattheapplicantwasnota

partytotheoriginalconspiracythatwashatchedbetweenthepolice
officialsofATSGujaratandthepoliceofficialsoftheSTFRajasthan.

ba
y

WhenthecaseoftheInvestigatingAgencyisseenasawhole,the
murderofKausarbiwasnotinitiallyplanned.Kausarbiinsistedon
accompanyingherhusbandSohrabuddin,andthatishowshewas

om

broughttoAhmedabad. Shewaskilledasperhaps,therewasno
otheralternativeafterthekillingofSohrabuddinasKausarbicould

havebeenawitnesstowhathadhappened. Iftheapplicantwas
nottakeninconfidencewithrespecttothekillingofSohrabuddin,
thelikelihoodofhishavingbeentakeninconfidencebeforekilling
Kausarbi, cannot be readily presumed. The possibility of the
applicant's help having been taken (only) for the disposal of

::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2014 12:35:28 :::

15/20

ba177012

Kausarbi's body, cannot altogether be ruled out in the facts and

rt

circumstances,butevenonthebasisthattheapplicantwasinvolved

C
ou

intheconspiracytomurderKausarbi,hisroleinthemattercannot
betreatedtobeonparwiththosewhowerepartiestotheinitial
conspiracy of kidnapping and murdering Sohrabuddin. Even

according to the learned counsel for the Respondent no.1, the

23

ig
h

applicantwasapartofwhatiscalledbyhimas'Stage3conspiracy'.

The role of the applicant is of a lesser gravity when

comparedtothatattributedtothesomeotheraccused,including

ba
y

theAccusedno.4whoseBailApplicationhasbeenrejectedbyme.

24

Theapplicantisalsonotkeepinggoodhealth.Itmay

om

berecalledthattoascertaintheseriousnessoftheailmentsfrom
whichheissaidtobesuffering,andtoverifytheclaimsmadein

that regard, by an order dated 20 February 2014, a report was

called for, from the Chief Medical Officer of the Civil Hospital,
Ahmedabadwhere the applicantispresentlylodged. Thereport
that has been received shows that the applicant has been
hospitalizedsince 20March2012. From20March2012to28

::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2014 12:35:28 :::

16/20

ba177012

September 2012, he was admitted as an indoor patient at CIMS

rt

Hospital,Ahmedabad,andthereafter,heisbeingtreatedasindoor

C
ou

patientattheCivilHospitalAhmedabad. TheSummaryReportof
thehealthconditionoftheapplicantasmentionedinthesaidreport
isasunder:

Patient is suffering from Severe

ig
h

obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) syndrome,

Diabetes Kellitus type II, Hypertension,
Bicuspid Aortic Valve, Left frozen

shoulder, Right sided sciatica, cervical

spondylosiswithMorbidObesity.

For treatment of severe obstructive

ba
y

sleepapnoeathegoldstandardtreatmentis
longtermuseofCPAP(continuouspositive
airway pressure) machine with humidifier

om

and Nasal Mask during sleep. On records

fromCPAPMachine,dailySleeptime(TST)
Remains variable (1.40 to 9.33 hours) and
daily AH1 remains in the range of 0.2 to
2.4withaverageAH11.0. TheAutoCPAP
mean pressure required pressure for less
thanorequalto90%oftimeis12.9cmof
H2O.
For other Medical illness he is on
Anti diabetic drugs, anti hypertension

::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2014 12:35:28 :::

17/20
drugs,

other

ba177012

symptomatic

drugs,

rt

physiotherapyandcardiacrehabilitationby

25

C
ou

physiotherapist.

Mr.Venegavkar, learned counsel for the CBI conceded

thattheapplicantisallegedtobeinvolvedinthematteronlywith
respect to the killing of Kausarbi, and not with the earlier part

ig
h

thereofviz.ofbringingSohrabuddinfromAndhraPradesh,killing
him and lodging of a false First Information Report to show the
deathashavingoccurredinanencounterwiththepolice.Healso

concededthattheapplicantissufferingfromseriousailments,and
ishospitalizedsinceaperiodofaboutoneyear. Hiscontentionis

ba
y

thattheapplicantisbeingtreatedproperlyintheCivilHospitaland
not that the applicant is suffering from serious health problems

om

requiringhospitalization.

26

The main thrust of the arguments advanced by Shri

Venegavkarwhileopposingthebailapplicationisonthefactthat
thebailgrantedtotheapplicantbytheSpecialCourtpreviously,
was cancelled by the High Court of Gujarat and that the
cancellationofthebailwasupheldbytheSupremeCourtofIndia.
HehasplacedmuchrelianceontheobservationsmadebytheHigh

::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2014 12:35:28 :::

18/20

ba177012

CourtofGujarat inCriminalMisc.ApplicationNo.12646of2007

27

C
ou

applicantbytheSessionsCourt,wascancelled.

rt

decided on 25 January 2008, whereby the bail granted to the

I have gone through the observations made by the

learnedSingleJudgeoftheGujaratHighCourtinthesaidorder,

ig
h

whichwereemphasizedbyMr.Venegavkar.Iamunabletoaccept
that the circumstances, as were existing at that time, have not

28

changedatall.

In the first place, the investigation was at a crucial

ba
y

stageatthattime,whichisafactorwhichmuchweighedwiththe
High Court of Gujarat in cancelling the bail granted to the
applicant. Now, the matter has been investigated by different

om

agencies and it is conceded before me that the investigation is

almostcomplete.Thisitselfisamajorchangeinthecircumstances

justifyingarelookatthematter.

29

Secondly,thehealthconditionoftheapplicantseemsto

havemuchdeterioratedsince20March2012asevidencedfromthe
factthathehasbeencontinuouslyhospitalizedsincethen.Serious

::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2014 12:35:28 :::

19/20

ba177012

illhealth is also a relevant circumstance while considering the

C
ou

30

rt

questionofgrantofbail.

Thirdly, that order was passed in January 2008 i.e.

morethanfiveyearsback. Theapplicantpreviouslywasreleased
on Anticipatory Bail, and as such, had not been, sufficiently or

ig
h

satisfactorilyinterrogatedbythattime.Itisnobody'scasenowthat
theapplicantisrequiredtobeinterrogatedanyfurther.

ThecontentionofMr.Venegavkarthatdelayinholding

31

thetrialandthelengthofthepretrialdetentionisnotarelevant

ba
y

considerationforbail,cannotbeaccepted.Thoughbyitself,itmay
notbesufficienttojustify thereleaseonbailin caseofserious
offences,thatitisanextremelyrelevantconsideration,cannotbe

om

doubted.

32

I am, therefore, unable to accept the contention of

Mr.Venegavkar,thelearnedcounselfortheCBIthattheHighCourt
of Gujarat having cancelled the bail granted to the applicant
previously,thequestionofgrantofbailtohim,atthisstage,cannot
be considered by this Court, as that would amount to

::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2014 12:35:28 :::

20/20

ba177012

reconsiderationofthesameissuesdealtwithbytheHighCourtof

33

C
ou

rt

Gujaratatthattime,which,accordingtohim,isnotpermissible.

Considering (i)the role attributed to the applicant in

theallegedoffences,asperthechargesheetitself,(ii)thenatureof
materialbywhichitissupported,and(iii)thattheapplicantisin

ig
h

custodyforaperiodofmorethanfiveyears,asalsothefactthat
(iv)heappearstobesufferingfromseriousailmentsandhasbeen

Applicationisallowed.

ba
y

34

hospitalizedon20March2012,Ithinkitfittoreleasehimonbail.

35

Applicantisorderedtobereleasedonbailinthesum

om

ofRs.30,000/withonesuretyinlikeamount.

36

At this stage, on oral prayer of Mr.Venegavkar, the

learnedcounselfortheCBI,itisdirectedthatthisordershallnot
takeeffectforaperiodoftwoweeksfromtoday.

(A.M.THIPSAY,J)

::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2014 12:35:28 :::