1. By this common order, I shall dispose of two separate applications dated 23.05.2023 and 15.07.2023 filed U/S 437/439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the accused Chanpreet Singh and Arvind Kumar Singh respectively seeking their regular bail in the present case.

2. The applicants were arrested in this case on 15.05.2023 and 12.05.2023 respectively and since then they are running in custody. The present case of CBI was registered on 17.08.2022 vide FIR No. RC­0032022A0053 at PS CBI, ACB, Delhi for commission of the offence of criminal conspiracy punishable U/S 120B r/w 477A IPC and Section 7 of the PC Act, 1988 (as amended in the year 2018) as well as substantive offences thereof and it was registered in relation to irregularities committed in framing and implementation of excise policy of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) for the year 2021­22. Manish Sisodia, the then Dy. Chief Minister as well as Excise Minister of the ruling Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) in Delhi and fourteen other persons/entities were specifically named as accused in FIR of the case.

3. As on date, three chargesheets against total sixteen accused persons stand already filed by CBI before this court in the present case and the first or main chargesheet is found to have been filed in court on 25.11.2022 for offences U/S 120B IPC r/w Sections 7, 7A & 8 of the PC Act and substantive offences thereof and the second or first supplementary chargesheet was filed on 25.04.2023 for offences U/S 120­B IPC r/w Sections 201 and 420 IPC and Sections 7, 7A, 8 & 12 of the PC Act, 1988 and substantive offences thereof. The third or second supplementary chargesheet in the case is found to have been filed on 08.07.2023, though some further investigation in the case is still going on.

4. Cognizance of the alleged offences was taken by this court vide order dated 15.12.2022 passed in the file of main/first chargesheet and all the seven accused prosecuted through the said chargesheet were directed to be summoned to face trial for the alleged offences. Subsequently, even the four accused chargesheeted through the first supplementary chargesheet were summoned to face trial in the present case vide order dated 27.05.2023. Both the applicants herein have been prosecuted as accused through the second supplementary chargesheet and the same is still pending consideration before this court on the point of summoning of the accused persons sent to face trial through the said chargesheet.

5. As per allegations made in the present case by CBI, while the above excise policy of GNCTD was still at the stage of formulation or drafting, a criminal conspiracy was hatched between various accused persons and in furtherance of that conspiracy, some loopholes and lacunae were intentionally left out or created in the policy and the same were meant to be utilized or exploited later on. A huge amount of money is alleged to have been paid as advance kickbacks or bribe to the politicians and other public servants in Delhi and as involved in above conspiracy for the said purpose and it was paid by the South liquor lobby. It is alleged that against these kickbacks and bribe, certain acts were done to favour and some undue pecuniary benefits were extended to the conspirators involved in liquor trade in Delhi. It has been specifically alleged that kickbacks of around Rs. 90­100 crores in advance were paid through hawala channels to some politicians of the ruling AAP in Delhi and the other public servants involved in conspiracy by some persons in liquor business from South India, through the co­accused Vijay Nair, Abhishek Boinpally and Dinesh Arora (who subsequently turned approver), and the policy was manipulated and drafted in such a way so as to secure monopolization and cartelization of liquor business in Delhi and to derive undue benefits therefrom for the conspirators and for achieving this objective, besides effecting some other changes, the profit margin of wholesalers was increased from 5% to 12% for siphoning off 6% out of this 12% profit margin for payment of bribe or repayment of the above advance kickbacks to the South lobby.

6. It has also been found during investigation that these kickbacks were being returned back to the South lobby later on, out of profit margins of the wholesalers holding L­1 licenses through different modes, like issuance of excess credit notes, bank transfers and outstanding amounts left in accounts of the companies controlled by some conspirators from South lobby, which were not meant to be recovered from them. It has further been alleged that as a result of the above criminal conspiracy, a cartel was formed or permitted to be formed between three components of the said policy, i.e. liquor manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers, by violating provisions and against the spirit of said policy and all the conspirators played active roles to achieve illegal objectives of the said criminal conspiracy and it resulted in huge losses to the Government exchequer and undue pecuniary benefits to the public servants and other accused involved in the said conspiracy. Investigation is stated to have revealed that two representatives of South lobby were given stake of 65% in the wholesale firm created in the name of M/S Indospirits and this entity was granted wholesale license to sell the liquor brands of one of the big liquor manufacturers of the country namely M/S Pernod Ricard. Various other entities relating to some of the co­accused have also been found to be a part of the above conspiracy and cartel and the mechanism brought into existence for repayment of the above kickbacks.

7. The contents of bail applications as well as of the replies thereto filed on behalf of CBI have been perused, along with record of the case. The extensive arguments advanced by Sh. Siddharth Aggarwal, Ld. Senior Counsel, assisted by Sh. Chirag Madan and Ms. Ravleen Sabharwal, Advocates, representing the applicant Chanpreet Singh and Sh. Rajat Bhardwaj, assisted by Sh. Kanisk Raj and Sh. Kaustubh Khanna, Advocates for the applicant Arvind Kumar Singh, as well as Sh. Pankaj Gupta, Ld. Senior PP representing the CBI have been heard and considered.

8. Sh. Siddharth Aggarwal, Ld. Senior Counsel and Sh. Rajat Bhardwaj, Ld. Counsel representing the applicants Chandpreet Singh and Arvind Kumar Singh respectively have both argued that the arrest of their clients in the present case was totally illegal and unwarranted as they both had joined investigation of this case initially even without issuance of any formal notices and they even joined it on issuance of notices subsequently. It is also argued that the applicants cooperated in investigation of the case and disclosed all the facts and information pertaining to this case as the same were in their knowledge and they also provided the documents desired by the investigating agency. It is further submitted by the Ld. Counsels that still the applicants were arrested in this case by the CBI illegally as they were not ready to give some particular types of statements as were being desired by the investigation agency for implicating some other persons as accused in the case and to suit their requirements. It has also been argued by them that the applicants were under no legal duty or obligation to give such false statements to suit the illegal designs and purposes of the investigating agency or to disclose some incriminating facts and to make confessional statements against themselves, in view of protection guaranteed to them by Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. Ld. Senior Counsel representing the applicant Chanpreet Singh has also vehemently argued that Article 20(3) of the Constitution providing for the right against self incrimination of an accused enjoys an ‘exalted status’ in view of the Constitution Bench decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Selvi Vs. State of Karnataka, (2010) 7 SCC 263 and it is an essential safeguard in criminal procedure and this legal position was also subsequently followed and reiterated in many cases, including the case of Santosh Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2017) 9 SCC 714. It has also been submitted by Ld. Counsels for applicants that even the statements allegedly made by them during the course of their joining of investigation prior to and subsequent to their arrest were forcibly extracted from them, under threats and physical as well as mental torture, and hence, the same are not admissible in evidence for any purposes.

9. It is also the contention of Ld. Counsels representing the applicants that even as per the admitted case of prosecution, none of the two applicants was in liquor business or had any role to play with formulation or implementation of the above excise policy and it is also not the case of prosecution that any of them was one of the conspirators, who were present in different meetings held between the accused Vijay Nair representing the accused Manish Sisodia and other politicians/public servants of the ruling AAP, representatives of members of the South liquor lobby and the other conspirators in liquor business in Delhi. It is also their submission that none of the applicants was even admittedly involved in payment or transfer/transmission of the above advance kickback amount of Rs. 90­100 crores by the South liquor lobby to accused Vijay Nair, out of which an amount of around Rs. 30 crores is stated to have been paid through the approver Dinesh Arora.

10. It is further the contention of Ld. Counsels for applicants that the only role which has been attributed to both these applicants by the investigating agency is that they both were involved and instrumental in subsequent transfer of some amounts or part of the above kickbacks from Delhi to Goa in connection with election expenses of the AAP. It has also been argued by them that even if the admitted case of prosecution is taken as true for the sake of arguments, the applicants herein are only alleged to have been working as employees or associates of the accused Rajesh Joshi, whose company namely M/S Chariot Productions Media Pvt. Ltd. (in short, M/S Chariot Productions) was given the advertising work of AAP in relation to assembly elections in Goa, or of the accused Vijay Nair or Mootha Gautham. It is also submitted that the accused Rajesh Joshi was even not arrested in this case by the CBI and chargesheet qua him has been filed without arrest, though he was arrested and bailed out in the connected case registered by ED vide ECIR No. ECIR/HIU­II/14/2022 dated 22.08.2023. It is further their contention that even some of the other accused who had allegedly handled the above kickback amount sent from south to Delhi and from Delhi to Goa have not been arrested in this case and some other accused of the case having more serious role than the applicants were also not arrested and were chargesheeted without arrest.

11. It is further the contention of Ld. Counsels for the applicants that bail is the rule and jail is an exception and the object of bail is neither punitive nor preventive and is meant only to secure the presence of accused during the trial and once chargesheet against the accused persons stand already filed before this court, their further detention in custody is illegal and unwarranted and they are immediately entitled to be released on bail. Judgments in cases Manubhai Ratilal Patel Vs. State of Gujarat, (2013) 1 SCC 314; Manoranjana Sinh @ Gupta Vs. CBI, 2017 (5) SCC 218 and Firoz Khan Vs. State of NCT, Bail Application No. 945/2020 have also been referred to and relied upon by Ld. Counsels in support of their above submissions. Further, the judgment in case Bhulabai Vs. Shankar Barkaji Matre and Ors., 1999 SCC OnLine Bom 315 is also being relied upon in support of their submission that denial of bail to an accused is a restriction on his freedom and reference to another judgment of the Hon’ble High Court in Bail Application No. 913/2020, in case Navendu Babbar Vs. State of NCT of Delhi is also found to have been made by them in the bail applications in support of their submission that in such matters, where the conclusion of investigation may take a time, the accused is not required to be kept in custody endlessly or awaiting such conclusion as the criminal investigation is not a metaphorical fishing rod handed to an investigating agency to indulge in its penchant for fishing around for evidence, at its own leisure and in the fullness of time, and it has to be a time limited process to be conducted strictly within the structure and framework of applicable law. This judgment has also been referred to by Ld. Counsels in support of their submission that the right against self incrimination of an accused under Article 20(3) of the Constitution is a fundamental right.

12. Besides the above, personal and family backgrounds of both the applicants have also been made the ground for grant of bail to them with a submission that they both belong to respectable families and are having clean antecedents and enjoy a good reputation in society and there are no chances of their absconding from proceedings or trial or of influencing the witnesses or resorting to destruction of evidence and thus, it has been submitted that they even satisfy the ‘triple test’ and all other guidelines and conditions for grant of bail.

13. Per contra, Ld. Senior PP for CBI has strongly opposed the grant of bail to these two applicants and though he admits that they were not party to the formulation of excise policy or they were even not involved in the liquor trade, but it is his submission that they both are very much found to have been involved in transfer of huge amounts from Delhi to Goa, out of the above kickbacks and towards payment of election expenses of AAP in assembly elections of Goa. Hence, it is the vehement submission of Ld. Senior PP for CBI that since both the applicants have been found to be connected with money trail of the proceeds of crime of this case, they do not deserve to be granted bail and are required to be detained in custody. It is also his contention that though initially the applicants cooperated in investigation of this case, but subsequently their behaviour had changed suddenly and they failed to explain the incriminating oral as well as documentary evidence that emerged during the course of investigation showing the role played by them in transfer of huge amounts from Delhi to Goa, which were part of advance kickbacks paid by the South liquor lobby to the accused Vijay Nair and other politicians of AAP.

14. Ld. Senior PP for CBI has also forcefully argued that during the course of investigation of this case, records of a hawala (angadiya) firm named M/S R. Kantilal Finance & Courier Services (in short, M/S R. Kantilal) operating in Goa, which were earlier seized by the Income Tax Department, and that of some other angadiya firms operating in Delhi and the statements of some angaridas (hawala operators) recorded during the course of investigation have revealed that a huge amount of Rs. 44,54,22,500/­ was sent from Delhi to Goa through hawala channels during the period from 21.06.2021 to 10.01.2022 and the applicants Chanpreet Singh Rayat @ Preet as well as Arvind Kumar Singh were involved in illegal transfer/transmission of the above amount and hence, they both are directly related to the money trail of this case. It is also submitted by him that the role and involvement of applicants in transmission of the above amount is duly substantiated by the oral evidence collected in the form of statements of some angadiyas and also the documentary evidence pertaining to records of the concerned angadiya firms as well as the digital evidence in the form of some Whatsapp chats and Call Detail Records (CDRs) of the applicants, concerned angadiyas and other accused or persons involved in transmission of the said amount.

15. It is further the submission of Ld. Senior PP that the evidence collected so far clearly reveals that the applicants were directly connected to or related to some of the other main accused and the allegations being made and evidence found against them are serious in nature and they are accused of commission of economic offences and hence, they are not entitled to be released on bail. It is also his submission that the release of applicants at this stage may adversely affect the ongoing further investigation and the applicants may also attempt to tamper with evidence of this case and to influence the witnesses.

16. As discussed above, it is not in dispute that both the applicants Chanpreet Singh and Arvind Kumar Singh have not played any role in formulation of the above excise policy and they are also not found connected with implementation of the said policy in any manner and none of them is or was even having any stake or interest in the liquor business in Delhi or in any other part of the country. Further, as per the case of prosecution, they both are also not being alleged to have been a part of the South lobby, which allegedly paid the above advance kickbacks to the accused Vijay Nair, Manish Sisodia or any other politician of AAP, in connection with formulation of the said policy or for insertion of any favourable clauses in the policy. Hence, none of the two applicants is even alleged to have been present in any of the meetings held at Gauri Apartments, hotels Oberoi & Oberoi Maidens, Delhi and ITC Kohinoor, Hyderabad etc., that took place between the accused persons or members of the above criminal conspiracy in connection with formulation or implementation of the said policy. Thus, it is the admitted case of CBI that none of them had derived any undue financial benefits out of framing or working of the said policy nor had paid any bribe or kickbacks to any accused or politicians or other public servants of AAP and GNCTD in connection with the said policy. It is also the admitted case of prosecution that none of them had even received any kickbacks or bribe for themselves as the allegations being made against them are only that they were involved in receiving or handling some of the bribe or kickback amounts.

17. Further, it is also the admitted case of CBI that none of the two applicants was involved in receiving any amount of bribe or kickbacks in Delhi, which was sent through hawala channels by the South liquor lobby in connection with framing or implementation of the said policy, in pursuance of above said criminal conspiracy, and which was meant to be received by or paid to the accused Vijay Nair, Manish Sisodia or others, through the approver Dinesh Arora or otherwise. As per the case of prosecution, out of the above kickback amount of Rs. 90­100 crores, Rs. 30 crores have been transferred or transmitted through hawala channels through the approver Dinesh Arora.

18. The role of applicants, which is claimed to have emerged during the course of investigation, is alleged to be that they both were involved in transmission or receiving of certain amounts, which were sent from Delhi to Goa through hawala channels and in connection with election expenses of the AAP in relation to Goa Assembly Elections, 2022. It is the case of prosecution that the accused Rajesh Joshi was the Director of M/S Chariot Productions, which company was given the advertising and other campaigning related work of the AAP in Goa for the said elections, and he is being alleged to be a close associate of the accused Vijay Nair of this case. It has been alleged in the chargesheet that M/S Chariot Productions had engaged around 33 vendors in Goa in connection with the assigned election related works of the said party and huge amounts were transmitted or transferred through hawala channels from Delhi to Goa, which were meant to be paid by him to the said vendors.

19. It has also been specifically alleged that as per investigation conducted till date, an amount of Rs. 44,54,22,500/­ was sent from Delhi to Goa through the above illegal channels, however, the applicants are shown to have been connected with a part or portion of the said amount and not the above entire amount of Rs. 44,54,22,500/­. As per prosecution case, an amount of Rs. 11,93,30,000/­, out of the above amount of Rs. 44,54,22,500/­, was sent during the period between 21.06.2021 to 31.12.2021 through an angadiya firm M/S Asil Corporation in Delhi to another angadiya firm M/S R. Kantilal in Goa and it is alleged that the above amount was delivered at Goa to the applicant Chanpreet Singh, accused Prince Kumar and one Sh. Rajiv Ashok Mondkar. As per the statement made by Sh. Ashok Chandulal Shah of M/S Asil Corporation, the said amount in cash was provided to him by the accused Rajesh Joshi and his employee Damodar Prasad Sharma and it is alleged that the CDR of mobile phones of these persons also confirm that they were in touch with each other during the relevant period.

20. Further, it has also been alleged in chargesheet that out of the above amount of Rs. 44,54,22,500/­, an amount of Rs. 7,10,92,500/­ was sent from Delhi through another angadiya firm named M/S K.S. Enterprises to M/S R. Kantilal at Goa during the period 04.01.2022 to 10.01.2022 and this amount was received by the applicant Chanpreet Singh only. As per statement made by Sh. Devang Solanki of M/S K.S. Enterprises, it was the applicant Arvind Kumar Singh who had provided the said amount at Delhi and investigation has also revealed that the applicant Arvind Kumar Singh was connected to the other accused Mootha Gautham and Abhishek Boinpally of this case, who both were part of the South liquor lobby and also stand prosecuted in this case.

21. Again, the remaining amount of Rs. 25,50,00,000/­, out of the above total amount of Rs. 44,54,22,500/­, is claimed to have been sent from Delhi to Goa through three other angadiya firms namely M/S Kirti Kumar Amba Lal (Rs. 16,00,00,000/­) M/S Maa Ambey (Rs. 2,00,00,000/­) and M/S Neelkanth (Rs.7,50,00,000/­) and it was again sent to angadiya firm M/S R. Kantilal and is stated to have received by the applicant Chanpreet Singh and above Sh. Rajiv Ashok Mondkar. Sh. Rajiv Ashok Mondkar is alleged to be the then Personal Secretary of Ms. K. Kavitha, Ex­MP of Telangana, and also connected to or being in touch with the other accused Abhishek Boinpally & Arun Pillai of South liquor lobby and another accused Sameer Mahandru of M/S Indospirits during the relevant period. It is also claimed that the CDRs and statements of some of the persons involved in above transactions prima­facie corroborate the above allegations and these statements further show that the above amount of Rs. 25,50,00,000/­ was provided in cash at Delhi for transfer to Goa by the South liquor lobby.

22. Thus, as per admitted case of prosecution set up on the basis of second supplementary chargesheet filed qua both these applicants, they were working as conduits only in transfer/transmission or receiving of some of the amounts, out of the total amount of Rs. 44,54,22,500/­, transferred from Delhi to Goa through hawala channels in connection with election expenses of AAP. The applicant Chanpreet Singh has been alleged to be a close associate of accused Rajesh Joshi, who in turn is claimed to be an associate of accused Vijay Nair. Investigation is also stated to have revealed payment or deposit of certain amount in bank account of the applicant Chanpreet Singh showing that he was being paid salary @ of around Rs. 50,000/55,000/­ per month by the accused Rajesh Joshi or Vijay Nair through the entities connected with or related to them.

23. As per the chargesheet, out of total amount of Rs. 44,54,22,500/­, an amount of Rs. 17,38,14,500/­ was received by the applicant Chanpreet Singh, Rs. 27,00,00,000/­ by Sh. Rajiv Ashok Mondkar and Rs. 16,08,000/­ by the accused Prince Kumar and all these amounts have been received at Goa and as also discussed above, the applicant Arvind Kumar Singh was involved in sending or remitting of an amount of Rs. 7,10,92,500/­ from Delhi to Goa. Hence, Ld. Defence Counsels representing the applicants appear to be right in making a submission that whatever acts have been done by the applicant Chanpreet Singh in receiving the above amounts, the same have not been done by him in his independent capacity or for his own financial benefit and he had done the same only in his capacity of an employee/associate of accused Rajesh Joshi or as per instructions of the accused Rajesh Joshi or Vijay Nair. Similarly, the applicant Arvind Kumar Singh has also remitted the above amount from Delhi to Goa only in his capacity of an employee of a company owned by the accused Mootha Gautham. Therefore, it will be a matter of trial only as to whether or not both these applicants were aware about the true nature or colour of the money or amounts handled by them in their above capacities or that they were aware or not that the said amounts were part of the above kickback or bribe amount paid by the South lobby.

24. Moreover, as also discussed above, the applicants are not connected with inflow of the bribe or kickback amount from South India to Delhi and admittedly, they are connected only with outflow thereof from Delhi to Goa in connection with election related expenses of APP and hence, it will also be a matter of trial as to whether or not their above acts can be considered or held to be a part of the above criminal conspiracy entered into between the other accused persons in relation to formulation or implementation of the above excise policy or these may be considered as acts relating to different activities in respect to above bribe or kickback amount or proceeds of crime generated through this case and coming within the purview of Section 3 of the PMLA or these acts were actually done or performed by them without any criminal intents or attracting any criminal implications.

25. Further, it cannot also be ignored that though the applicants are alleged to be employees or associates of the accused Rajesh Joshi and Mootha Gautham, but these two accused Rajesh Joshi and Mootha Gautham have not even been arrested in this case by the CBI and chargesheets against both of them have been filed without arrest. Further, the accused Rajesh Joshi is also found to have been chargesheeted in this case through the second supplementary chargesheet along with these two applicants and the above Damodar Prasad Sharma and Prince Kumar and though these two other accused Damodar Prasad Sharma and Prince Kumar are also claimed to have been involved in handling of the above bribe or kickback amount, but even they have not been arrested by the IO in present case. Again, the accused Mootha Gautham had even not been arrested in the connected case of ED and though the accused Rajesh Joshi was arrested in the said case, but he was directed to be released on bail by this court on ground, inter­alia, that the evidence collected in the said case by that time and pertaining to certain payments allegedly sent from Delhi to Goa and claimed to be part of the bribe or kickback amount was of the period subsequent to the period during which the above excise policy had remained in force. Even two other accused who played an important part in the above criminal conspiracy and were also instrumental in ensuring the repayment of kickback amount, namely Arun Ramchandran Pillai and Sameer Mahandru, were not arrested by the investigating agency in this case. Hence, on the ground of parity with the other accused namely Arjun Pandey, Damodar Prasad Sharma and Prince Kumar having similar roles and also keeping in mind the fact that role played by applicants is even lesser than the roles of some other accused named above i.e. Rajesh Joshi, Arun Ramchandran Pillai, Mootha Gautham and Smeer Mahandru, both the applicants herein are held entitled to be released on bail.

26. Moreover, apart from the above, bail stands already granted by this court in the present case to two other accused namely Vijay Nair and Abhishek Boinpally having serious role in commission of alleged offences and hence, the applicants even deserve parity in the matter of grant of bail with these two accused. Though, the bail applications of two other accused namely Manish Sisodia and Amandeep Singh Dhall stand dismissed by this court and bail application of accused Manish Sisodia was even dismissed subsequently by the Hon'ble High Court, but there is no comparison between the roles of applicants and the above two accused as the accused Manish Sisodia was alleged to be architect of the above criminal conspiracy and even the accused Amandeep Singh Dhall was observed to be a prime member of the above criminal conspiracy involved at every stage of commission of alleged offences.

27. Besides all this, the offences alleged against the applicants carry a maximum term of imprisonment upto seven years only and thus, the sentence prescribed for these offences cannot be held to be so much severe to warrant further detention of the applicants in custody. Again, both the applicants are stated to be permanent residents of Delhi and there is nothing on record to show that they will not appear to attend the proceedings or trial of this case in case of their release on bail or that they will make any attempt to influence the trial or witnesses or to destroy evidence of this case and hence, neither they can be considered as 'flight risks' nor there are any reasonable grounds or material to apprehend that they will resort to any such activity influencing or adversely affecting this prosecution or the trial to be held against them.

28. In the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Balchand, 1977 AIR SC 2447, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:­

"2. The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like, by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the Court. We do not intend to be exhaustive but only illustrative."

(emphasis supplied)

29. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurcharan Singh Vs. State (Delhi Admn.), [(1978) 1 SCC 118 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 41 : AIR 1978 SC 179] also observed as under:­

"22. In other non-bailable cases the court will exercise its judicial discretion in favour of granting bail subject to sub- section (3) of Section 437 CrPC if it deems necessary to act under it. Unless exceptional circumstances are brought to the notice of the Court which may defeat proper investigation and a fair trial, the Court will not decline to grant bail to a person who is not accused of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life "

(emphasis supplied)

30. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also made the following observations in the case of Babu Singh Vs. State of U.P. [(1978) 1 SCC 579 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 133]:­

"17. The significance and sweep of Article 21 make the deprivation of liberty a matter of grave concern and permissible only when the law authorising it is reasonable, even-handed and geared to the goals of community good and State necessity spelt out in Article 19. Indeed, the considerations I have set out as criteria are germane to the constitutional proposition I have deduced. Reasonableness postulates intelligent care and predicates that deprivation of freedom by refusal of bail is not for punitive purpose but for the bifocal interests of justice-to the individual involved and society affected.

18. We must weigh the contrary factors to answer the test of reasonableness, subject to the need for securing the presence of the bail applicant. It makes sense to assume that a man on bail has a better chance to prepare or present his case than one remanded in custody. And if public justice is to be promoted, mechanical detention should be demoted. In the United States, which has a constitutional perspective close to ours, the function of bail is limited, community roots of the applicant are stressed and, after the Vera Foundation's Manhattan Bail Project, monetary suretyship is losing ground. The considerable public expense in keeping in custody where no danger of disappearance or disturbance can arise, is not a negligible consideration. Equally important is the deplorable condition, verging on the inhuman, of our sub-jails, that the unrewarding cruelty and expensive custody of avoidable incarceration makes refusal of bail unreasonable and a policy favouring release justly sensible".

(emphasis supplied)

31. In the case of Moti Ram Vs. State of M.P., [(1978) 4 SCC 47 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 485], the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:­

"14. The consequences of pretrial detention are grave. Defendants presumed innocent are subjected to the psychological and physical deprivations of jail life, usually under more onerous conditions than are imposed on convicted defendants. The jailed defendant loses his job if he has one and is prevented from contributing to the preparation of his defence. Equally important, the burden of his detention frequently falls heavily on the innocent members of his family." 

(emphasis supplied)

32. Again, in the celebrated case of Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:­

"25. The provisions of CrPC confer discretionary jurisdiction on criminal courts to grant bail to the accused pending trial or in appeal against convictions; since the jurisdiction is discretionary, it has to be exercised with great care and caution by balancing the valuable right of liberty of an individual and the interest of the society in general. In our view, the reasoning adopted by the learned District Judge, which is affirmed by the High Court, in our opinion, is a denial of the whole basis of our system of law and normal rule of bail system. It transcends respect for the requirement that a man shall be considered innocent until he is found guilty. If such power is recognised, then it may lead to chaotic situation and would jeopardise the personal liberty of an individual." 

(emphasis supplied)

33. The case of P. Chidambaram Vs. CBI, (2020) 13 SCC 337 also deserves a specific mention on the issue of grant of bail to an accused and in this case the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the principles or guidelines laid down in some of the above cases and granted bail to an accused on the basis of facts and circumstances of the said case. Some of the relevant observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this case are also being reproduced herein below:­

"21. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of the well-settled principles having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. The following factors are to be taken into consideration while considering an application for bail:-

(i) the nature of accusation and the severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution;

(ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses or apprehension of threat to the complainant or the witnesses;

(iii) reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence;

(iv) character behaviour and standing of the accused and the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; (v) larger interest of the public or the State and similar other considerations (vide Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi and another (2001) 4 SCC 280).

22. There is no hard and fast rule regarding grant or refusal to grant bail. Each case has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of each case and on its own merits. The discretion of the court has to be exercised judiciously and not in an arbitrary manner. At this stage itself, it is necessary for us to indicate that we are unable to accept the contention of the learned Solicitor General that “flight risk” of economic offenders should be looked at as a national phenomenon and be dealt with in that manner merely because certain other offenders have flown out of the country. The same cannot, in our view, be put in a straight-jacket formula so as to deny bail to the one who is before the Court, due to the conduct of other offenders, if the person under consideration is otherwise entitled to bail on the merits of his own case. Hence, in our view, such consideration including as to “flight risk” is to be made on individual basis being uninfluenced by the unconnected cases, more so, when the personal liberty is involved.

23. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan and another (2004) 7 SCC 528, it was held as under:-

“11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. 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 and elaborate documentation of the merit 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. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind. It is also necessary for the court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are:

(a) The nature of accusation and the 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.

(c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. (See Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh (2002) 3 SCC 598 and Puran v. Rambilas (2001) 6 SCC 338.) Referring to the factors to be taken into consideration for grant of bail, in Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal v. State of Tamil Nadu (2005) 2 SCC 13, it was held as under:-

“16. …….The considerations which normally weigh with the court in granting bail in non-bailable offences have been explained by this Court in State v. Capt. Jagjit Singh AIR 1962 SC 253 and Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) (1978) 1 SCC 118 and basically they are — the nature and seriousness of the offence; the character of the evidence; circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; a reasonable possibility of the presence of the accused not being secured at the trial; reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with; the larger interest of the public or the State and other similar factors which may be relevant in the facts and circumstances of the case……”

24. After referring para (11) of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar, in State of U.P. through CBI v. Amarmani Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 21, it was held as under:-

“18. It is well settled that the matters to be considered in an application for bail are (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the charge; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail [see Prahlad Singh Bhati v. Nct, Delhi (2001) 4 SCC 280 and Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) (1978) 1 SCC 118]. While a vague allegation that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses may not be a ground to refuse bail, if the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or if there is material to show that he will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence, then bail will be refused ”.

25. In the light of the above well-settled principles, let us consider the present case. At the outset, it is to be pointed out that in the impugned judgment, the High Court mainly focussed on the nature of the allegations and the merits of the case; but the High Court did not keep in view the well-settled principles for grant or refusal to grant bail.

26. As discussed earlier, insofar as the “flight risk” and “tampering with evidence” are concerned, the High Court held in favour of the appellant by holding that the appellant is not a “flight risk” i.e. “no possibility of his abscondence”. The High Court rightly held that by issuing certain directions like “surrender of passport”, “issuance of look out notice”, “flight risk” can be secured. So far as “tampering with evidence” is concerned, the High Court rightly held that the documents relating to the case are in the custody of the prosecuting agency, Government of India and the Court and there is no chance of the appellant tampering with evidence.

27. The learned Solicitor General submitted that when the accused is facing grave charges and when he entertains doubts of possibility of his being conviction, there is a “flight risk”. It was submitted that the appellant has wherewithal to flee away from the country and prayed to refuse bail to the appellant on the ground of “flight risk” also. We find no merit in the submission that the appellant is a “flight risk” and there is possibility of his abscondence. In the FIR registered on 15.05.2017, the High Court has granted interim protection to the appellant on 31.05.2018 and the same was in force till 20.08.2019 – the date on which the High Court dismissed the appellant’s petition for anticipatory bail. Between 31.05.2018 and 20.08.2019, when the appellant was having interim protection, the appellant did not file any application seeking permission to travel abroad nor prior to the same after registration of FIR any attempt is shown to have been made to flee. On behalf of the appellant, it is stated that the appellant being the Member of Parliament and a Senior Member of the Bar has strong roots in society and his passport having been surrendered and “look out notice” issued against him, there is no likelihood of his fleeing away from the country or his abscondence from the trial. We find merit in the submission of the learned Senior counsel for the appellant that the appellant is not a “flight risk”; more so, when the appellant has surrendered his passport and when there is a “lookout notice” issued against the appellant."

(emphasis supplied)

34. Again, in the connected case of Enforcement Directorate (ED) against the same accused titled and reported as P. Chidambaram Vs. DoE, (2020) 13 SCC 791 also, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has granted bail to the accused on the basis of above considerations and while making the following observations:­

"23. Thus, from cumulative perusal of the judgments cited on either side including the one rendered by the Constitution Bench of this Court, it could be deduced that the basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains the same inasmuch as the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception so as to ensure that the accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial. However, while considering the same the gravity of the offence is an aspect which is required to be kept in view by the Court. The gravity for the said purpose will have to be gathered from the facts and circumstances arising in each case. Keeping in view the consequences that would befall on the society in cases of financial irregularities, it has been held that even economic offences would fall under the category of “grave offence” and in such circumstance while considering the application for bail in such matters, the Court will have to deal with the same, being sensitive to the nature of allegation made against the accused. One of the circumstances to consider the gravity of the offence is also the term of sentence that is prescribed for the offence the accused is alleged to have committed. Such consideration with regard to the gravity of offence is a factor which is in addition to the triple test or the tripod test that would be normally applied. In that regard what is also to be kept in perspective is that even if the allegation is one of grave economic offence, it is not a rule that bail should be denied in every case since there is no such bar created in the relevant enactment passed by the legislature nor does the bail jurisprudence provides so. Therefore, the underlining conclusion is that irrespective of the nature and gravity of charge, the precedent of another case alone will not be the basis for either grant or refusal of bail though it may have a bearing on principle. But ultimately the consideration will have to be on case to case basis on the facts involved therein and securing the presence of the accused to stand trial.

24. In the above circumstance it would be clear that even after concluding the triple test in favour of the appellant the learned Judge of the High Court was certainly justified in adverting to the issue relating to the gravity of the offence. However, we disapprove the manner in which the conclusions are recorded in paragraphs 57 to 62 wherein the observations are reflected to be in the nature of finding relating to the alleged offence. The learned senior counsel for the appellant with specific reference to certain observations contained in the above noted paragraphs has pointed out that the very contentions to that effect as contained in paragraphs 17, 20 and 24 of the counter affidavit has been incorporated as if, it is the findings of the Court. The learned Solicitor General while seeking to controvert such contention would however contend that in addition to the counter affidavit the respondent had also furnished the documents in a sealed cover which was taken note by the learned Judge and conclusion has been reached."

(emphasis supplied)

35. It also emerges out from the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of P. Chidambaram (Supra) that the above principles and considerations are equally applicable even in a case falling in category of economic offences and simply because a case pertains to this category, bail cannot be denied to an accused if the other attending facts and circumstances warrant his release on bail.

36. Therefore, in light of the above factual and legal discussion, the bail applications of both the accused Chanpreet Singh and Arvind Kumar Singh are allowed and they are directed to be released from custody in the present case on furnishing of personal bonds in the sum of rupees one lakh (Rs.1,00,000/­) each with one surety in the like amount each to the satisfaction of this court. This is, however, subject to the following conditions:­

"1) that they will surrender their passports before this court and in case the same are already surrendered or seized in any other case, the proof or receipts thereof will be produced before this court at the time of presenting the bail bonds and if they do not possess a passport, then an affidavit to this effect will be filed by them or any member of their family before the court to this effect;

2) that they will not leave the country without prior permission of the court;

3) that they will not threaten or influence the witnesses of this case and will not even make an attempt to do so in any manner whatsoever;

4) that they will not tamper with the evidence of this case and will not even make an attempt to do so in any manner whatsoever; and

5) that they will join the ongoing investigation and co­ operate with the IO in case they are required to do so, even after their release on bail in terms of this order."

37. The bail applications of both the accused stand allowed and disposed off accordingly with the above observations. However, nothing contained herein shall tantamount to expression of any opinion on merits of the case.

38. E­copies of this order be given dasti to Ld. Counsels for the applicants as well as to Ld. Senior PP for CBI through Whatsapp/e­mail and a copy of the order be kept in both the files and a copy of order be also sent to the Jail Superintendent concerned for his information and records.