Telecom scam

2012 SCMR 1732 SUPREME-COURT-OF-INDIA Judicial Precedent

Grant ofEconomic offenceTelecom scam

Accused persons were alleged to have been involved in a telecom scam which allegedly caused huge losses to the State Exchequer

Courts below had refused bail to the accused person on the grounds that offence alleged was of very serious nature involving deep rooted planning in which huge financial loss was caused to the State Exchequer, and that there was a possibility of the accused persons tampering with the witnesses

Validity

Seventeen accused persons were involved in the case, and statement of the witnesses ran to several hundred pages and the documents, on which reliance was placed by the prosecution, were voluminous

Trial might take considerable time and it looked that the accused persons would have to remain in jail longer than the period of detention, had they been convicted

Interest of justice did not require that accused persons should be in jail for an indefinite period

Although offence alleged against the accused persons was a serious one in terms of alleged huge loss to the State Exchequer, but that by itself should not be a deterrence from enlarging the accused persons on bail when there was no serious contention of the Investigation Bureau (respondent) that the accused, if released on bail, would interfere with the trial or tamper with evidence

Investigation was complete and charge-sheet had been filed

Supreme Court observed that the court was conscious of the fact that the accused persons were charged with economic offences of huge magnitude and if same were proved they might jeopardize the economy of the country but at the same time, one could not lose sight of the fact that the Investigating agency had already completed investigation and the charge-sheet was already filed before the Trial court, therefore, presence of the accused persons in custody might not be necessary for further investigation

Accused persons were released on bail on the conditions that they would 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; that the accused persons shall remain present before the court on the dates fixed for hearing of the case and if they wanted to remain absent, then they should take prior permission of the court and in case of unavoidable circumstances for remaining absent, they should immediately give intimation to the appropriate court and also to the Investigation Bureau; that the accused persons would not dispute their identity as the accused in the case, and that they should surrender their passports and in case, they were not a holder of the same, they should swear to an affidavit

Order accordingly.