DIPAK SHUBHASHCHANDRA MEHTAversusC.B.I. AND ANR.

                         [2012] 3 S.C.R. 278


A              DIPAK SHUBHASHCHANDRA MEHTA
                                   v.
                          C.8.1. AND ANR.
                 (Criminal Appeal No. 348 of 2012)
                        FEBRUARY 10, 2012
8
         [P. SATHASIVAM AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.]

        Bail - Grant of - Detention in jail custody for long period
  - Delay in trial - Effect of - Held: When there is delay in trial,
C bail should be granted to the accused, though the same
  should not be applied to all cases mechanically - In the
  instant case, it is clear that due to various factors the trial may
  take a longer time - Considering the non-possibility of
  chommencement of trial in near future and also of the fact that
D the accused-appellant is in custody from 31.03.2010, except
  the period of interim bail, i.e. from 15.09.2011 to 30.11.2011,
  it is not a fit case to fix any outer limit taking note of the
  materials collected by the prosecution - When undertrial
  prisoners are detained in jail custody to an indefinite period,
E Article 21 of the Constitution is violated - Appellant was
  charged with economic offences of huge magnitude - At the
  same time, though the Investigating Agency had completed
  the investigation and submitted charge sheet including
  additional charge sheet, the necessary charges were not
F framed, therefore, presence of appellant in custody may not
  be necessary for further investigation - In view of the same,
  considering the precarious health condition of the appellant,
  as supported by the documents including the certificate of the
  Medical Officer, Central Jail Dispensary, the appellant is
G entitled to an order of bail pending trial on stringent conditions
  in order to safeguard the interest of the CBI - Constitution of
  India, 1950 - Art. 21.

     Bail - Grant of - Exercise of discretion by Court -
  Manner of - Held: The Court granting bail should exercise
H                         278
 DIPAK SHUBHASHCHANDRA MEHTA v. C.B.I. AND 279
                  ANR.
its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of      A
course - Though at the stage of granting bail, a detailed
examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the
merits of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to
indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why
bail was being granted, particularly, where the accused is       B
charged of having committed a serious offence - Factors to
be considered by the Court granting bail, stated.

     Appellant alongwith other persons was charged with
economic offences of huge magnitude and detained in jail         C
custody. His application for regular bail was rejected by
the High Court. The appellant filed SLP, whereupon this
Court taking into account the assurance of the Additional
Solicitor General (ASG) that the trial will be completed
within a period of three months did not grant bail to the
appellant, but permitted him to move bail application            D
before the Special CBI Court in case of continuation of
trial beyond period of three months. However, the trial
could not be concluded and though the prosecution
submitted charge sheet the charges were not framed. The
appellant filed another application for regular bail which       E
also was rejected by the High Court.

    The appellant is suffering from various medical
ailments and is in custody from 31-03-2010, except a short
period of interim bail from 15-9-2011 to 30-11-2011 and          F
his application under S. 239 CrPC for discharge is
pending. Two other accused had been granted bail by the
High Court on medical grounds.

    The question for consideration in the instant appeal         G
was whether the appellant had made out a case for
regular bail.

    Disposing the appeal, the Court
    HELD: 1.1. The assurance of the ASG for com~!etion           H
    280     SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2012] 3 S.C.R.


A of the case within three months ·was not fulfilled due to
  vari.ous reasons. Also, though the charge sheet and
  additional charge sheet were submitted to the Court, the
  same have not been approved and framed. In the
  meanwhile, apart from absence of some of the accused
B on various dates, due to some reasons or other including
  medical grounds, the appellant has also filed a petition
  for 'discharge'. Further, even in the counter affidavit filed
  by the CBI, it is stated that the accused persons moved
  app~ications under Section 239 CrPC for discharge and
c the same are pending for hearing and disposal and
  further the Madhao Merchantile Bank case is going on
  day-to-day basis before the Special CBI Court and in
  addition to the same, Sohrabuddin Fake Encounter case
  is also pending for trial before the same Court. It is clear
D that the said Special CBI Court is over burdened and in
  view of the voluminous materials the prosecution has
  collected, undoubtedly the trial may take a longer time.
  When there is a delay in the trial, bail should be granted
  to the accused. But the same should not be applied to
E all cases mechanically. [Paras 16, 17] [291-G-H; 292-A-E]

       1.2. The Court granting bail should exercise its
  discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of
  coul'se. Though at the stage of granting bail, a detailed
  examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of
F the merits of the case need not be undertaken, there is a
  need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie
  concluding why bail was being granted, particularly,
  where the accused is charged of having committed a
  serious offence. The Court granting bail has to consider,
G among other circumstances, the factors such as a) the
  nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case
  of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence; b)
  reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness
  or apprehension of threat to the complainant and; c)
H
 DIPAK SHUBHASHCHANDRA MEHTA v. C.B.I. AND 281
                  ANR.
prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the           A
charge. In addition to the same, the Court while
considering a petition for grant of bail in a non-bailable
offence apart from the seriousness of the offence,
likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and
tampering with the prosecution witnesses, have to be              B
noted. Considering the present scenario and there is no
possibility of commencement of trial in the near future
and also of the fact that the appellant is in custody from
31.03.2010, except the period of interim bail, i.e. from
15.09.2011 to 30.11.2011, it is not a fit case to fix any outer   c
limit taking note of the materials collected by the
prosecution. When the undertrial prisoners are detained
in jail custody to an indefinite period, Article 21 of the
Constitution is violated. [Para 18) (292-E-H; 293-A-C)

    1.3. The appellant along with the others are charged          D
with economic offences of huge magnitude. At the same
time, though the Investigating Agency has completed the
investigation and submitted the charge sheet including
additional charge sheet, the fact remains. that the
necessary charges have not been framed, therefore, the            E
presence of the appellant in custody may not be
necessary for further investigation. In view of the same,
considering the health condition as supported by the
documents including the certificate of the Medical Officer,
Central Jail Dispensary, the appellant is entitled to an          F
order of bail pending trial on stringent conditions in order
to safeguard the interest of the CBI. [Para 19) (293-D-F]
    Babba vs. State of Maharashtra (2005) 11 SCC 569;
Vivek Kumar vs. State of U.P. (2000) 9 SCC 443 and Sanjay         G
Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation 2012 (1) SCC 40:
2011 (13) SCR 309 - relied on.
                     Case Law Reference:
    2011 (13) SCR 309         relied on             Parei 6       H
    282        SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2012] 3 S.C.R.


A         (2005) 11 sec 569       relied on             Para 17
          c2000) g sec 443        relied on             Para 17
        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
    No. 348 of 2012.
B
        From the Judgment & Order dated 20.10.2011 of the High
    Court of Gujrat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Misc. Application No.
    14224 of 2011.

C      Mukul Rohtagi, Kamini Jaiswal, Anand Yagnik, Mohit D.
    Ram, Meenakshi Arora for the Appellant.

        P.P. Malhotra, ASG, Harish Chandra, P.K. Dey,
    Padmalaxmi Nigam, Arvind Kumar Sharma for the
    Respondents.
D
          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1. Leave granted.

         2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order
E dated 20.10.2011 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at
   Ahmedabad in Criminal Misc. Application No. 14224 of 2011
   whereby the High Court rejected the application for regular bail
  .filed by the appellant herein.

          3. Brief facts:
F
       (a) The appellant herein is the Joint Managing Director of
  Vishal Exports Overseas Ltd., a Public Limited Company
  (hereinafter referred to as "the Company") incorporated in the
  year 1988 as a partnership firm which was converted into a
G Public Limited Company in 1995 under the provisions of
  Chapter IX of the Companies Act, 1956. The Company is
  engaged in the business of import and export of diverse
  commodities including agricultural products and diamonds.
  According to the appellant, the Company was a Government
H of India recognized Four Star Trading House with a turnover of
  DlPAK SHUBHASHCHANDRA MEHTA v. C.B.I. AND 283
            ANR. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
  about Rs.3935 crores in the year 2005-2006. It is also his claim    A
· that the Company has been accredited with many awards and
  was ranked 1st in India under the merchant exporter category
  in the years 2003-04 and 2005-06.

     (b) Due to non-payment of advances from various banks,           B
 complaints were filed against the Company as well as the
 promoters and Directors. The Fl Rs filed by various banks are:

      (i) In the year 2008, Punjab National Bank lodged an FIR
 with CBI bearing No. RC-l(E)/2008/BSFC, Mumbai. In the said
 case, only Pradip Shubhashchandra Mehta (A-3) was arrested.          C
 Remand was not granted by the Special CBI Court at
 Ahmedabad and bail was granted within a span of one day.
 The appellant herein was not arrested in this case and formal
 bail was granted to him on filing charge sheet.
                                                                      D
     (ii) In the year 2009, UCO Bank lodged an FIR with the CBI
 bearing No. RC 12(E)/2009 in which charge sheet was
 submitted on 15.11.2010 and the appellant was arrested on
 1.11.2010 and was released on temporary bail for various
 durations.
                                                                      E
      (iii) Vijaya Bank had also lodged an FIR with the CBI
 bearing No. RC 11 (E)/2008 and submitted charge sheet on
 26.06.2010 in which the appellant herein was arrested after filing
 of the charge sheet, he was also granted bail.
                                                                      F
      (iv) State Bank of Hyderabad has also lodged an FIR and
 the same is under investigation. No charge sheet has been
 submitted so far.

       (c) State Bank of India and 17 other banks filed O.A. No.      G
 11 of 2008, before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (ORT),
 Ahmedabad seeking recovery of amount given by way of credit
 facilities un~er consortium arrangement to the Company. Ad-
 interim orders have been passed on 28.02.2008 to secure the
 interest of the banks and to ensure that the litigation does not
 become meaningless by the time final order is passed.                H
    284       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2012] 3 S.C.R:


A      (d) On 19.01.2010, the appellant herein filed Civil Suit No.
  145 of 2010 seeking damages to the tune of Rs.786 crores
  against the informant Andhra Bank and other banks before the
  Ahmedabad City Civil Court. The Andhra Bank, Zonal Office,
  Mumbai also lodged an FIR on 19.01.2010 which was
B registered by the CBI BS & FC/MUM bearing No. 1(E)/2010
  for commission of offences punishable under Sections 406,
  420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal
  Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC'). In connection with the said FIR,
  the appellant herein was arrested on 31.03.2010 and remanded
C to police custody till 03.04.2010 and thereafter in the judicial
  custody. The appellant was granted temporary bail on three
  occasions on medical ground. After completing the
  investigation, the CBI submitted charge sheet on 10.06.2010
  in which the appellant was arrayed as accused No.4.
D        (e) On 31.08.2010, the appellant preferred an application
    for bail after charge sheet was filed before the Special Court
    vide Criminal Misc. Application No. 141 of 2010 but the same
    was dismissed.

E         (f) Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed
    Criminal Misc. Application No. 11415 of 2010 before the High
    Court for regular bail in connection with the FIR lodged by
    Andhra Bank, Zonal Office Mumbai bearing No. 1(E)/2010
    which was dismissed by the High Court on 19.10.2010.
F       (g) After investigation in RC.12(E)/2009 lodged by UCO
    Bank charge sheet was submitted on 15.11.2010 and the
    appellant was arrested on 01.11.2010 and he was released on
    temporary bail.

G        (h) Against the order dated 19.10.2010 passed by the High
    Court, the appellant filed S.L.P.(Crl.)No. 83 of 2011 before this
    Court and the same was disposed of on 29.04.2011 directing
    the special Court to take all endeavour for an early completion
    of the trial.
H
 DIPAK SHUBHASHCHANDRA MEHTA v. C.B.I. AND 285
           ANR. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
     (i) As there was no progress in the trial, the CBI filed a A
supplementary charge sheet on 02.02.2011 which was served
on all the accused including the appellant herein only on
02.08.2011. Since the trial did not come to an end, the
appellant filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 195 of 2011 for
regular bail. before the Special Court. In the meanwhile, B
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, vide order dated
15.09.2011 in Misc. Application No. 17/2011 in Spl. Case No.
03/2010 granted temporary bail up to 20.10.2011 to the
appellant herein on the ground of medical exigencies. Again
on 19.10.2011, considering the health of the appellant, the c
Special Court extended the temporary bail till 30.11.2011. Vide
order dated 27.09.2011, Special Court rejected the application
for regular bail filed by the appellant herein.

     0) The appellant filed an application being Criminal Misc.
Application No. 14224 of 2011 before the High Court for regular D
bail but the same was rejected. Again the said application, the
appellant has filed the above appeal by way of special leave
before this Court.

   4. Heard Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, learned senior counsel for the         E
appellant and Mr. P.P. Malhotra, learned Addi. Solicitor
General for the CBI.

      5. The only point for consideration in this appeal is whether
.the appellant herein has made out a case for regular bail and
 whether the High Court is justified in dismissing his bail           F
 application.

     6. We are conscious of the fact that this Court should not
ordinarily, save in exceptional cases, interfere with the orders
granting/refusing bail by the High Court. We are also provided G
with the facts and figures about the appellant's involvement in
similar other proceedings. In the case on hand, out of four
accused, A-1 is the Company and the appellant-A-4 is the Joint
Managing Director of the Company. It is not in dispute that A-
2 and A-3 were granted bail by the High Court on medical H
    286       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (2012] 3 S.C.R.


A grounds. Mr. Rohtagi, learned senior counsel for the appellant
  apart from highlighting that the appellant-A-4 is entitled for
  regular bail and also submitted that he be considered on
  medical grounds because of his various ailments as certified
  by leading doctors including the Medical Officer, Central Jail
B Dispensary, Ahmedabad.

          7. Insofar as the merits of the claim of the appellant is
    considered, it is useful to refer the recent decision of this Court
    in Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2012 (1)
    SCC 40. Since in this decision, all the earlier decisions of this
C   Court relating to grant of bail in a matter of this nature have been
    considered, we feel that no other earlier decisions need be
    referred to. Those appeals were directed against the common
    judgment and order of the learned Single Judge of the High
    Court of Delhi dated 23.05.2001 in Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI by
D   which the learned Single Judge refused to grant bail to the
    appellant-accused therein. The allegations against those
    accused appellants were that they entered into a criminal
    conspiracy for providing telecom services to otherwise
    ineligible companies and by their conduct, the Department of
E   Telecommunications (DoT) suffered huge loss. The learned
    Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi rejected the bail applications
    filed by them by order dated 20.04.2011. The appellants therein
    moved applicatio~s before the High Court under Section 439
    of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The same came to
F   be re,iected by the learned Single Judge by his order dated
    23.05.2011. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants
    approached this Court by filing appeals.

        8. After considering the entire materials, arguments of the
  various senior counsel as well as the Addi. Solicitor General
G for the CBI and marshalling the earlier decisions of this Court
  and after finding that the trial may take considerable time and
  the appellants who are in jail have to remain in jail longer than
  the period of detention had they been convicted and also
  keeping in mind the fact that the accused are charged with
H
 DIPAK SHUBHASHCHANDRA MEHTA v. C.B.I. AND 287
           ANR. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
economic offences of huge magnitude, ultimately this Court           A
granted bail to all the appellants by imposing severe conditions.

    9. It is also relevant to refer the order passe~ by this Court
on 29.04.2011 in SLP (Criminal) No. 83 of 2011 filed by the
appellant herein earlier. This Court directed as under:
                                                                     B
    "We have considered the rival contentions and also
    perused all the relevant documents. In view of the fact that
    the other two accused, namely, A-2 and A-3 were released
    mainly on the ground of illness and old age and of the
    assurance by the learned Additional Solicitor General that C
    the trial will be completed within a period of three months,
    we are not inclined to accede to the request of the
    petitioner. However, we make it clear that for any reason
    if the trial continues beyond the period assured by the
    learned Additional Solicitor General, the petitioner is free D
    to move bail application before the Special Court. In such
    event the Special Court is permitted to consider it in
    accordance with law. We also direct the Special Court to
    take all endeavour for an early completion of the trial as.
    suggested by the learned Additional Solicitor General.       E

      10. Though on the last date of hearing, learned Addi.
Solicitor General assured this Court that the trial will be
completed within a period of three months, in view of various
reasons considering the magnitude of the issues involved, F
frequent absence of the accused at the hearing dates due to
various reasons including health grounds, filing of petition for
discharge and also the pressure of work on the Special Court
hearing among other important matters, the fact remains that
the trial could not be concluded. In fact, it is pointed out that
though the prosecution has submitted charge sheet the charges G
have not been framed due to various reasons as mentioned
above.
    11. We have already pointed out that insofar as the present
case is concerned among the four accused A-1 is a Company,           H
    288      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 3 S.C.R.


A A-2 and A-3 were granted bail on medical grounds. According
  to the present appellant i.e A-4, he was arrested on 31.03.2010
  by the CBI and was remanded to police custody for three days.
  Since 03.04.2010, he is in the judicial custody at Sabarmati
  Central Jail, Ahmedabad and on 15.09.2011, he was granted
B interim bail up to 20.10.2011 and again on 19.10.2011,
  considering his health conditions, the Special Court extended
  his interim bail till 30.11.2011. As stated earlier, the CBI has
  completed the investigation and submitted the charge sheet on
  10.06.2010 and the offences alleged in the charge sheet are
c of the years 2006 and 2007.
         12. Mr. Rohtagi, learned senior counsel, after taking us
  through various proceedings by the Civil Court as well as ORT
  under SARFESI Act submitted that entire properties of the
  appellant and their companies/firms were attached by the
D orders of the Court/Tribunal. According to him, before entering
  into transaction with the banks, all those properties have been
  mortgaged and as on date, the appellant cannot do anything
  with those properties without the permission of the Court/
  Tribunal. In such circumstances, he submitted that there will not
E be any difficulty in realising the money payable to the banks, if
  any. In addition to the above factual information, it was pointed
  out that after the order of this Court, on 29.04.2011 there is no
  progress in the trial. It is also pointed out that the trial has not
  even commenced inasmuch as a supplementary charge sheet
F has been served upon the appellant herein only on 02.08.2011.
  It is further pointed out that the charge has not been framed till
  this date. It is also brought to our notice that prosecution has
  relied upon 286 documents and listed 47 witnesses in the
  charge sheets filed by it.
G
         13. In addition to the above information, Mr. Rohtagi has
    also pointed out that at the time of arrest of the appellant on
    31.03.2010, he was taken to the hospital and was diagnosed
    for hypertension and acidity. According to him, no other ailment
    was noted by the hospital in the discharge card. While so, when
H
    DIPAK SHUBHASHCHANDRA MEHTA v. C.B.I. AND 289
              ANR. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
he was in custody since 31.03.2010, the appellant has suffered A
40 per cent permanent partial disability in his left arm as a result
of surgerY for abnormal bone protrusion. It is also highlighted
that on account of uncontrolled high blood pressure while in
custody the appellant has suffered 30 per cent blindness in his
right eye and has undergone a surgery for vitreous hemorrhage. B
It is further pointed out that the hemorrhage having re-occurred,
the doctors have advised a second surgery to save his eyes.
However, according to him, the said surgery could not be
performed due to continuing uncontrolled high blood pressure
and resultant recurring bleeding in the vessel even after first     c
surgery. It is also pointed out that after passing of order by this
Court on 29.04.2011, the appellant while in custody has
contracted obstructive jaundice requiring long intensive
treatment. As a result of such obstructive jaundice, the appellant
is also unable to undergo other required surgeries. Learned D
senior counsel has also pointed out that the appellant is now
suffering from further disability of loss of hearing which can be
corrected only through surgery..In support of the above claim,
various certificates issued by doctors of private hospitals have
been placed on record. In addition to the same, Mr. Rohtagi
by drawing our attention to the certificate dated 07.08.2011 E
issued by the Central Prison Hospital, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad
stated that even according to the Medical officer of the Central
Jail Dispensary, the appellant is suffering from various ailments
as ·mentioned in the certificate which reads as under:
                                                                     F
                                      "OUT NO. ACJD/346/2011
                                  CENTRAL PRISON HOSPITAL
                                     SABARMATI, AHMEDABAD
                                               Date : 07.08.2011
                           CERTIFICATE                              G
•
            This is to certify that Mr. Dipak Shubhash Mehta is
      an under trial prisoner of Central Jail, Ahmedabad with
      prisoner NO. 4077.

                                                                    H
    290       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2012] 3 S.C.R.


A               He complains of continuous precordial chest pain
          dullache like heaviness in chest, Gabharaman, giddiness,
          chronic Rt. Hypochondriach pain in abdomen, bleeding P/
          R. dimness of vision Rt. Eye vision deviation of Rt. Eye
          outward since 1 -1/2 years.
B
             Patient is a known case of uncontrolled blood
        pressure since 4 years, chronic obstructive jaundice since
        6 months and fissure in anno with piles. Patient was sent
        to eye dept. Civil Hospital Ahmedabad on 02.02.2011,
      · seen by Dr. K.P.S. (Ophthalmic Surgical Unit) and
c       diagnosed as Rt. Eye glaucoma, 3rd nerve palsy in Rt. Eye
        with vitreous hemorrhage, macular degeneration and
        percentage of blindness is 30%. CT report suggests Fatty
        replacement of belly and distal tendinous insertion of
        superectus muscle on Rt. Side.
D
                On 25.03.2011, patient was operated for vitreous
          hemorrhage in private hospital even though, on 17.06.2011
          eye examination found fresh vitreous hemorrhage present
          due to uncontrolled blood pressure and chronic obstructive
E         jaundice.

                 On 27.09.2010, patient was sent to U.M. Mehta
          Institute of Cardiology & Research Centre for further
          investigation and treatment where his Echocardiography
          was done and report suggests Normal LV side and fair LV
F         function reduced LV compliance and 55%.

                  On 08.01.2011, patient was operated for tardy ulner
          nerve paresis. It forearm and neurolysis done of Lt. ulner
          nerve and advised regular physiotherapy. Dated
G         26.02.2011 COMO, Govt. General Hospital, Sola certified
          that patient is a case of physically disabled and has 40%'
          permanent physical impairment in relation to his Lt. upper
          lifllb.                                                   !




                Patient needs to be uqder continuous observation
H
DIPAK SHUBHASHCHANDRA MEHTA v. C.B.I. AND 291
          ANR. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
     under treating doctor and follow up. He is advised to avoid        A
     physical and mental stress to prevent any serious
     complications.

          This certificate is issued on the basis of available
     case records at Central Jail Dispensary.
                                                                        B
     Date: 07.08.2011
     Place: Ahmedabad Central Jail
                                                              Sd/-
                                                   Medical Officer
                                          Central Jail Dispensary,      c
                                                    Ahmedabad."
     14. Apart from the above certificate, the very same Medical
Officer, Central Jail Dispensary, Ahmedabad has issued
another Certificate on 08.09.2011. In the said Certificate, after
reiterating the very same complaints finally he concluded "he           D
needs treatment from the Specialist, Super Specialist,
Cardiologist and Gastroenterologist & Ophthalmologist for his
multiple problems".

     15. The above information by a Medical Officer of the              E
Central Jail Dispensary, Ahmedabad supports the claim of the
appellant about his health condition. No doubt, Mr. P.P.
Malhotra, learned ASG by drawing our attention to various
details from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the CBI
submitted that in view of magnitude of the financial involvement
by the appellant with the nationalised banks, it is not advisable       F
to enlarge him on bail.

     16. We have gone through all the details mentioned in the
counter affidavit of the Senior Superintendent of Police, CBI,
and Bank Securities and Fraud Cell, Mumbai. The appellant               G
has also filed rejoinder affidavit repudiating those factual details.
At this juncture, it is unnecessary to go into further details. In
the earlier order, we have noted the assurance of the ASG for
completion of the case within three months. Admittedly, the
same was not fulfilled due to various reasons. It is also not in        H
    292      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 3 S.C.R.


A dispute that though the charge sheet and additional charge
  sheet were submitted to the Court, the 'same have not been
  approved and framed. lri the meanwhile, apart from absence
  of some of the accused on various dates, due tq some reasons
  or other including medical grounds, th~ appellant herein has
B also filed a petition for 'discharge'. Furthrr, even in the counter
  affidavit filed by the CBI, it is stated that\ the accused persons
  moved applications under Section 239 of1the Code of Criminal
  Procedure, 1973 for discharge and the same are pending for
  hearing and disposal and further the Madh'ao Merchantile Bank
c case is going on day-to-day basis before the Special CBI Court
  and in addition to the same, Sohrabuddin Fake Encounter case
  is also pending for trial before the same Court. It is clear that
  the said Special CBI Court is over burdened and in view of the
  voluminous materials the prosecution has collected,
  undoubtedly the trial may take a longer time.                ·
0
       . 17. This Court has taken the view that when there is a delay
  in the trial, bail should be granted to the accused. [Vide Babba
  vs. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 11 SCC 569, Vivek Kumar
  vs. State of UP., (2000) 9 SCC 443.) But the same should
E not be applied to all cases mechanically.

        18. The Court granting bail should exercise its discretion
  in a judicious manner and not as a matter of .course. Though
  at the stage of granting bail, a detailed examination of evidence
F and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case need
  not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders
  reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted,
  particularly, where the accused is charged of having committed
  a serious offence. The Court granting bail has to consider,
G among other circumstances, the factors such as a) the nature
  of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction
  and the nature of supporting evidence; b) reasonable
  apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension
  of threat to the complainant and; c) prima facie satisfaction of
  the court in support of the charge. In addition to the same, the
H
 DIPAK SHUBHASHCHANDRA MEHTA v. C.B.I. AND 293
           ANR. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
Court while considering a petition for grant of bail in a non-          A
bailable offence apart from the seriousness of the offence,
likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and tampering with
the prosecution witnesses, have to be noted. Considering the
present scenario and there is no possibility of commencement
of trial in the near fl,lture and also of the fact that the appellant   B
is in custody from 31.03.2010, except the period of interim bail,
i.e. from 15.09.2011 to 30.11.2011, we hold that it is not a fit
case to fix any outer limit taking note of the .materials collected
by the prosecution. This Court has repeatedly held that when
the undertrial prisoners are detained in jail custody to an             c
indefinite period, Article 21 of the Constitution is violated. As
posed in the Sanjay Chandra's case (supra) we are also
asking the same question i.e. whether the speedy trial is
possible in the present case for the reasons mentioned above.

      19. As observed earlier, we are conscious of the fact that        D
the present appellant along with the others are charged with
economic offences of huge magnitude. Atthe same time, we
cannot lose sight of the fact that though the Investigating Agency
has completed the investigation and submitted the charge sheet
including additional charge sheet, the fact remains that the            E
necessary charges have not been framed, therefore, the
presence of the appellant in custody may not be necessary for
further investigation. In view of the same, considering the health
condition as supported by the documents including the
certificate of the Medical Officer, Central Jail Dispensary, we         F
are of the view that the appellant is entitled to an order of bail
pending trial on stringent conditions in order to safe guard the
interest of the CBI.

     20. In the light of what is stated above, the appellant is         G
ordered to be released on bail on executing a bond with two
solvent sureties, each in a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs to the satisfaction
of the Special Judge, CBI, Ahmedabad on the following
conditions:

                                                                        H
    294            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 3 S.C.R.


A          (i)      the appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any
                    inducement, threat or promise to any person
                    acquainted with the facts of the case so as to
                    dissuade him to disclose such facts to the Court or
                    to any other authority.
B
           (ii)     the appellant shall remain present before the Court
                    on the dates fixed for hearing of the case, for any
                    reason due to unavoidable circumstances for
                    remaining absent he has to give intimation to the
                    Court and also to the concerned officer of CBI and
c                   make a proper application that he may be permitted
                    to be present through counsel;

           (iii)    the appellant shall surrender his passport, if any, if
                    not already surrendered and in case if he is not a
D                   holder of the same, he shall file an affidavit;

           (iv)     In case he has already surrendered the Passport
                    before the Special Judge, CBI, that fact should be
                    supported by an affidavit.
E          (v)      liberty is given to the CBI to make an appropriate
                    application for modification/recalling the present
                    order passed by us, if the appellant violates any of
                    the conditions imp6sed by this Court.

F         21. The appeal is disposed of on the above terms.

    8.B.B.                                          Appeal disposed of.