Page 69 - GSTL_23rd July 2020_Vol 38_Part 4

2020 ] MOHIT VIJAY v. UNION OF INDIA 435
in the further investigation and may effect the material witnesses and therefore,
prays that they should not been released on bail.
8. Learned Counsel also relies on one another judgment passed by the
Coordinate Bench of this Court in relation of the Rajesh Arora v. State (S.B. Crimi-
nal Bail Application No. 3987/2020), decided on 26th May, 2020 where the Court
in the similar circumstances had refused to grant indulgence of bail to the peti-
tioner, who was in jail since 3rd August, 2018.
9. I have considered the submissions as noticed above and perused the
material available on record as well as the judgments as noticed above.
10. In Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation (supra), the Apex
Court has observed as under :
“40. The grant or refusal to grant bail lies within the discretion of the
Court. The grant or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and
circumstances of each particular case. But at the same time, right to bail is
not to be denied merely because of the sentiments of the community against
the accused. The primary purposes of bail in a criminal case are to relieve
the accused of imprisonment, to relieve the State of the burden of keeping
him, pending the trial, and at the same time, to keep the accused construc-
tively in the custody of the Court, whether before or after conviction, to as-
sure that he will submit to the jurisdiction of the Court and be in attendance
thereon whenever his presence is required.
46. We are conscious of the fact that the accused are charged with eco-
nomic offences of huge magnitude. We are also conscious of the fact that
the offences alleged, if proved, may jeopardize the economy of the country.
At the same time, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the investigating
agency has already completed investigation and the charge sheet is already
filed before the Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi. Therefore, their presence in
the custody may not be necessary for further investigation. We are of the
view that the appellants are entitled to the grant of bail pending trial on
stringent conditions in order to ally the apprehension expressed by CBI.
47. In the view we have taken, it may not be necessary to refer and discuss
other issues canvassed by the Learned Counsel for the parties and the case
laws relied on in support of their respective contentions. We clarify that we
have not expressed any opinion regarding the other legal issues canvassed
by learned counsel for the parties.
48. In the result, we order that the appellants be released on bail on their
executing a bond with two solvent sureties, each in a sum of ` 5 lakhs to the
satisfaction of the Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi on the following condi-
tions :-
(a) The appellants shall not directly or indirectly make any in-
ducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with
the facts or the case so as to dissuade him to disclose such
facts to the Court or to any other authority.
(b) They shall remain present before the Court on the dates fixed
for hearing of the case. If they want to remain absent, then
they shall take prior permission of the court and in case of un-
avoidable circumstances for remaining absent, they shall im-
mediately give intimation to the appropriate court and also to
the Superintendent, CBI and request that they may be permit-
ted to be present through the Counsel.
(c) They will not dispute their identity as the accused in the case.
(d) They shall surrender their passport, if any (if not already sur-
rendered), and in case, they are not a holder of the same, they
shall swear to an affidavit. If they have already surrendered
GST LAW TIMES  23rd July 2020  69