NIMMAGADDA PRASADversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

                     [2013] 3 S.C.R. 493


                  NIMMAGADDA PRASAD                               A
                               V.
         CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
           (Criminal Appeal No. 728 of 2013)
                        MAY 9, 2013.
                                                                  B
         [P. SATHASIVAM AND M.Y. EQBAL, JJ.]

    CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973:

      ss. 439 and 173(8) - Bail - Economic offences - Charge- c
sheets filed against appellant and others for offences
punishable u/ss 420, 409 and 477-A /PC and s.13(2) read with
s. 13(1 )(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act - Further
investigation u/s 173(8) pending - Held: Economic offences
constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different 0
approach in the matter of bail -Economic offences having
deep rooted conspiracies and involving huge Joss of public
funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave
offences affecting economy of the country as a whole and
thereby posing serious threat to financial health of the country E
- In the status report, it is also claimed that CBI has to examine
 various persons from different Government Departments,
Banks/ NBFCs, private companies/individuals involved in
 diversion! misappropriation of funds, employees of the
 company of which the appellant was the director, its holding F
company and their group companies to ascertain the facts
related to the case - Taking note of all these aspects, the Court
is of the opinion that appellant cannot be released at this
 stage - However, CBI is directed to complete the investigation
 and file charge sheet(s) as early as possible - Thereafter,
 appellant is free to renew his prayer for bail before trial court. G

     Pursuant to the order of the High Court in a writ
petition, a case for commission of offences punishable
u/ss 420, 409 and 477-A IPC and 13(2) read with s.13(1)(c)
                           493                                     H
    494     SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2013] 3 S.C.R.

A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered
  by CBI against a Member of Parliament (A-1) and 13
  others. The appellant was arraigned as A-3 in the said
  case. After the charge-sheet was filed, the appellant was
  arrested on 15.5.2012. The case related to amassing
B illegal wealth, conducting of media business with ill
  gotton money, allotment of thousands acres of lands with
  norms relaxed, handling the money through hawala
  channels, obtaining big loans violating bank guidelines,
  grant of mining leases on extraneous considerations,
c payment of illegal gratification etc. Four charge-sheets
  were filed and investigation was continuing u/s 173(8)
  CrPC in connection with certain related matters. Earlier
  prayers by appellant for bail were rejected with liberty to
  renew the prayer on completion of investigation. On
  16.11.2012, the appellant filed two petitions before the
0
  Special Judge for CBI - one seeking default /statutory bail
  and the other seeking regular bail in CC No. 8 of 2012.
  Both the applications were rejected. The criminal petition
  before the High Court for grant of bail was also dismissed.

E       Dismissing the appeal, the Court

        HELD: 1.1. It has been pointed out on behalf of the
  CBI that after filing of the charge sheet on 13.08.2012, in
  view of further materials, the CBI started investigation,
F which is permissible u/s 173(8) of the Code to look into
  the aspects of the involvement of the appellant in the
  company of which he was the Director and its group
  companies. In view of the same, undoubtedly, the
  investigating agency may require further time to collect
G all the materials, particularly, the nexus of the appellant
  with those concerns and the appellant being the
  beneficiary of the quantum of the amount secured. [para
  25] [504-G-H; 505-A]

       1.2. From the status report, it is brought to the notice
H
 NIMMAGADDA PRASAD v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF 495
              INVESTIGATION
of the Court that during the year 2008-09, the Government     A
of Andhra Pradesh alienated 8,844 acres of land in favour
a newly incorporated company, with more exemptions/
subsidies, which is termed as a holding company of the
company of which the appellant was a director. In the
status report, it is also claimed that the CBI has to         B
examine various persons from different Government
Departments, Banks/NBFCs, private companies/
individuals involved in diversion/misappropriation of
funds, employees of the company of which the appellant
is the director, its holding company and their group          c
companies to ascertain the facts related to the case. [para
18 and 20] [501-H; 502-A; 503-B-C]

     1.3. The trial Judge was of th:e view that if the
appellant is enlarged on bail, he will influence the
witnesses, since some of them are on his pay rolls, and       D
thereby investigation will suffer a set back. Even if it is
accepted that the statements have been recorded from
those employees, the matter is not going to end with their
statements. [para 23] [504-C-D]
                                                             E
     1.4. Considering all these developments, taking note
of various details furnished in the Status Report dated
30.04.2013, this Court is of the view that though the
appellant is in custody for nearly 11 months, at the same ·
time, the claim of the premier investigating agency cannot F
be underestimated. In order to establish its case, it is
the claim of the CBI that documents have to be obtained
from different banks, other private companies/individuals,
who facilitated the diversion of funds. In addition to the
same, public servants involved in processing of G
government files have to be examined apart from private
persons/companies. CBI has assured this Court that
further investigation is being carried out at a .faster pace
and is expected to be completed within six months. [para
25] [505-B-E]
                                                             H
      496     SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2013] 3 S.C.R.


  A      1.5. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind
    the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in
    support thereof, the severity of the punishment which
    conviction will entail, the character of the accused,
    circumstances which are peculiar to the accused,
  a reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the
    accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the
    witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the
    public/State and other similar considerations. It has also
    to be kept in mind that for the purpose of granting bail,
  C the Legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds
    for believing" instead of "the evidence" which means the
    court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it as
    to whether there is a genuine case against the accused
    and that the prosecuticn will be able to produce prima
    facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected,
  0
    at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt
    of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. [para 27] [506-
    D-F]

         1.6. Economic offences constitute a class apart and
- E need to be visited with a different approach in the matter
    of bail. Economic offences having deep rooted
    conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds
    need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave
    offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole
  F and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health
    of the country. [para 28] [506-D-H]

          State of Gujarat v~. Mohan/a/ Jitamalji Porwal and Anr.
      1987 (2) SCR 677 = (1987) 2 SCC 364 - referred to.

  G       1.7. This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that the
    appellant cannot be released at this stage. However, the
    CBI is directed to complete the investigation and file
    charge sheet(s) as early as possible. Thereafter, the
    appellant is free to renew his prayer for bail before the
  H trial court. [para 29] [507-A-B]
    NIMMAGADDA PRASAD v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF 497
                 INVESTIGATION
                         Case Law Reference                         A
        1987 (2) SCR 677         referred to           para 26
        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
    No. 728 of 2013.
                                                                    B
        From the Judgment & Order dated 08.10.2012 of the High
    Court of A.P. at Hyderabad in CRLP No. 6732 of 2012.

          H.N. Salve, Parag P. Tripathi, Mukul Gupta, Ashok Bhan,
    Gopal Sankaranarayan, Rajeshekar Rao, Nikhilesh Kumar,
    Robit Bhat, Ranjeeta R. Harsha Vardhan Reddy, Naved, Arup       C
    Banerjee, Anjali Chauhan, D.L. Chidananda, B.V. Balaram Das
    for the appearing parties.

        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                    D
        P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1. Leave granted.

       2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and
  order dated 08.10.2012 passed by the High Court of
  Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Petition
• No. 6732 of 2012 in R.C. 19(A)/2011-CBl-Hyderabad, whereby        E
\ the High Court dismissed the petition filed by the appellant
1
  herein for grant of bail.

         3. The only question posed for consideration is whether
    the appellant-herein has made out a case for bail.              F

    Brief facts:

        4. On the orders of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in
    Writ Petition Nos. 794, 6604 and 6979 of 2011 dated
    10.08.2011, the Central Bureau of Investigation (in short "the G
    CBI"), Hyderabad, registered a case'being R.C. No. 19(A)/
    2011-CBl-Hyderabad dated 17 .08.2011 under Section 1208
    read with Sections 420, 409 and 477-A of the Indian Penal
    Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and Section 13(2) read with
                                                                   H
    498      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 3 S.C.R.


A   Section 13(1 ){c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
    1988 (in short "the PC Act") against Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy
    (A-1), Member of Parliament and 73 others.

       5. The appellant-Nimmagadda Prasad was named as an
B accused at SI. No. 12 in the FIR dated 17 .08.2011 (after the
  chargesheet was framed, he was arrayed as A-3 and
  hereinafter, he will be referred to as A-3). It is further seen that
  during the course of investigation, the appellant was arrested
  on 15.05.2012 for his involvement and complicity in the case
C and presently, he is in judicial custody.

        6. After filing two successive bail applications before the
  trial Court which ended in dismissal, the appellant moved the
  High Court for enlarging him on bail on 06.09.2012 by filing
  Criminal Petition No. 6732 of 2012. The High Court, taking
D note of serious nature of the offence and having regard to
  personal and financial clout of the appellant (A-3) and finding
  that it cannot be ruled out that witnesses cannot be influenced
  by A-3 in case he is released on bail at this stage and also
  taking note of the submission of the Special Public Prosecutor
E that the investigation of the case is still continuing even after
  filing of the charge sheet(s), by impugned order dated
  08.10.2012, dismissed his bail application.

         7. Heard Mr. Harish N. Salve, learned senior counsel for
F   the appellant and Mr. Ashok Bhan, learned senior counsel for
    the respondent-CBI.

    Contentions:

        8. After taking us through the entire materials commencing
G from the filing of FIR dated 17.08.2011, contents of charge
  sheet dated 13.08.2012, orders of the trial Court rejecting the
  bail applications twice, the stand taken by the CBI before the
  trial Court and the High Court, Mr. Salve, learned senior
  counsel, vehemently contended that the appellant is entitled to
H an order of bail from this Court. He also submitted that in view
 NIMMAGADDA PRASAD v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF 499
      INVESTIGATION [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
of the inconsistent stand taken by the CBI at every stage and       A
taking note of the fact that the appellant is in jail since
15.05.2012, by imposing appropriate conditions, the appellant
may be released on bail.

      9. Mr. Ashok Bhan, learned senior counsel for the CBI, by.    B
placing reliance on all the materials filed by the prosecution
pointed out that the appellant, along with others, is involved in
a serious economic offence. He also submitted that the
appellant (A-3) himself is a beneficiary of land worth several
crores of rupees and properties in association with Jagan           C
Mohan Reddy (A-1), who enriched himself for more than 40,000
crores by the influence of his father who was the then Chief
Minister of Andhra Pradesh. He also submitted that even after
filing of the charge sheet on 13.08.2012, in view of further
investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (in short "the Code''), the CBI is looking into     D
all the aspects of investment of the appellant in Mis Indus
Projects and its group of companies, has collected a number
of files from different departments of the Government of Andhra
Pradesh, Banks/NBFCs and other private companies/
individuals. He finally concluded that in view of the Status        E
Report dated 30.04.2013 filed by the DIG of Police, CBI,
Hyderabad, stating that a further period of 4-6 months is
required for completing the investigation under Section 173(8)
of the Code, it would not be proper to release him on bail at
this juncture.                                                      F

     10. We. have carefully considered the rival submissions
and perused all the relevant materials relied on by both the
sides.                                   •

Discussion:                                                         G

    11. In the Status Report dated 30.04.2013, it is stated that
the allegations in the FIR against the appellant is that the
Government of Andhra Pradesh awarded VANPIC (Vodarevu
and Nizampatnam Port Industrial Corridor) Project to the            H
    500      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2013) 3 S.C.R.


A present appellant (A-3) and allotted more than 15,000 acres
  of land in Prakasam and Guntur Districts to the companies
  promoted by the appellant in violation of all the laws, rules and
  norms and granted several concessions. As a quid pro quo,
  the appellant invested in the following companies, viz., M/s
B Carmel Asia Holdings Pvt. Ltd., M/s Bharathi Cements, M/s
  Jagathi Publications Pvt. Ltd., M/s Silicon Builders, Mis Sandur
  Power Company etc. belonging to Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy,
  s/o the then Chief Minister, late Dr. Y.S. Rajasekhara Reddy.

         12. It is also brought to our notice that the investigation into
C the above said allegations revealed that during the period
  between 2006 and 2009, the Government of Andhra Pradesh,
  led by the then Chief Minister late Dr. Y.S. Rajasekhara Reddy
  extended many undue favours to the appellant by abusing his
  official position and thereby, an extent of 18878 acres was
D allotted in his favour, in return, A-3 paid illegal gratifications
  amounting to Rs. 854.50 crores to Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy
  (A-1) and his group of companies for exercising personal
  influence over his father, the then Chief Minister of Andhra
  Pradesh. It is the claim of the CBI that illegal gratifications were
E paid in the guise of investments/share application money to
  give them corporate colour in order to escape the criminal
  liability.

       13. It is also the claim of the prosecution that the appellant
F acted as a conduit to Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy (A-1) to
  channelize the bribe amounts paid by other individuals/
  companies as a quid pro quo for the undue benefits received
  by him from the Government of Andhra Pradesh led by late Dr.
  Y.S. Rajasekhara Reddy.

G      14. It is also pointed out that based on the available oral
  and documentary evidence, a charge sheet was filed against
  the appellant and other accused (A-1 to A-14) on 13.08.2012
  before the Court of Principal Special Judge for CBI cases,
  Hyderabad which was numbered as CC No. 14 of 2012.
H Thereafter, according to the CBI, based on various materials,
  NIMMAGADDA PRASAD v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF 501
       INVESTIGATION [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
 further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code is still       A
 continuing in respect of other aspects of the case.

          15. It is highlighted by the CBI that during further
   investigation in CC No. 14 of2012, the role of A.J. Jagannathan
   c;ind Dr. Khater Massaad, who represented on behalf of the          8
-- Government of Ras Al Khaima (RAK) - UAE has to be
   ascertained in view of various dubious transactions revealed.
   It is the stand of the CBI that A.J. Jagannathan, alleged Advisor
   to the Government of RAK-UAE had been a Director on the
   Board of Directors of M/s Indus Projects Ltd., along with the       C
   present appellant. According to the CBI, the further
   investigation has revealed that Rs. 140 crores, out of Rs. 525
   crores, the money of the appellant flown from Mauritius based
   companies into India under Automatic Route have been
   diverted and invested in M/s Jagathi Publications Pvt. Ltd. and
   M/s Bharathi Cements Corporation Pvt. Ltd., hence, the source       D
   of this money ought to be ascertained and investigated which
   is likely to take some time.

      16. According to the CBI, the appellant (A-3) had been a
 Director in M/s Indus Projects Ltd., which was awarded many           E
 projects/contracts by the Government of Andhra Pradesh during
 the period between 2004 and 2009.

      17. The CBI has also projected the order dated
 05.10.2012 passed by this Court in Special Leave Petition             F
 (Criminal) No. 5902 of 2012 filed by Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy
 (A-1), directing A-1 to apply for bail only after completion of
 the investigation in seven issues including Indus Projects Ltd.
 and Lepakshi Knowledge Hub Private Ltd. Mr. Ashok Bhan,
 by drawing our attention to the said order submitted that those
 directions are also applicable to Nimmagadda Prasad (A-3) -           G
 appellant herein, who was also a Director in M/s Indus Projects
 Ltd. which is under active investigation.

      18. From the status report, it is also brought to our notice
 that during the year 2008-09, the Government of Andhra                H
    502      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2013] 3 S.C.R.

A Pradesh alienated 8,844 acres of land in Ananthapur District
  in favour of M/s Lepakshi Knowledge Hub Private Limited, a
  newly incorporated company, with more exemptions/subsidies
  at a cost ranging between Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 1, 75,000 per acre.
  It is also highlighted that files were processed despite serious
B objections by the Finance Department about (i) the financial
  implications of the proposed concessions proposed on the
  State exchequer, (ii) company's financial standing; lack of
  credibility in terms of their past experience of the fledging
  company incorporated in July, 2008; and (iii) absence of safety
c clauses in the proposed Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) to
  resume land in case of violation/failure to implement the project.
  However, the Government of Andhra Pradesh led by late Dr.
  Y.S. Rajasekhara Reddy went ahead and entered into the MoA
  and alienated the said land by passing various Government
D Orders between 22.09.2008 and 21.02.2009.

           19. In the status report, it is also mentioned that M/s Indus
    Projects Limited suddenly came into picture claiming to be the
    holding company of M/s Lepakshi Knowledge Hub Private
    Limited and availed loans amounting to Rs. 790 crores from
E   different banks/NBFCs by mortgaging about 4,397 acres of
    land. It is the assertion of the prosecution that all the funds were
    misappropriated by Mis Indus Projects Ltd. for their real estate
    activities and other business needs. According to the CBI, so
    far, the investigation has revealed that at least Rs. 88 crores
F   out of the above funds have come back to Mis Indus Projects
    Ltd. through hawala channels/fake work orders/forged RA bills.
    It is the grievance of the CBI that the investigation so far has
    revealed that after more than four and a half years, the project
    has failed to take off and no job has been generated so far. It
G   is also the allegation of the CBI that the Banks/NBFCs adopted
    an average market value of Rs. 20 lakh per acre while
    disbursing loans to Mis Indus Projects Ltd. which were given
    to the company at a price ranging between Rs. 50,000 to Rs.
    1,75,000 lakh per acre. According to the CBI, the value of
H   8,844 acres of land dishonestly alienated to a private company
 NIMMAGADDA PRASAD v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF 503
      INVESTIGATION [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
would be around Rs. 1,768 crores approx. Though they secured           A
loan documents from various bank$, yet they are awaiting
similar documents from Punjab National Bank, Bank of India,
UCO Bank, Kotak Mahindra Bank and State Bank of India.

     20. In the status report, it is also claimed that the CBI has     B
to examine various persons from different Government
Departments, Banks/NBFCs, private companies/individuals
involved in diversion/misappropriation of funds, employees of
M/s Indus Projects Ltd., M/s Lepakshi Knowledge Hub Pvt. Ltd.,
and their group companies to ascertain the facts related to the
case.                                                                  c
      21. In addition to the same, it is also highlighted that Mis
 Indus Projects Ltd., who did not fulfil the technical and financial
criteria, submitted an application stating that .they would
develop the project through a consortium consisting of IDFC            D
(Financial Member) and M/s Embassy Group (Technical
 Member) and would form a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV).
In this regard, it is pointed out that Mis Indus Techzone Pvt. Ltd.,
projected as SPV, is fully owned by M/s Indus Projects Ltd.
While allotting 250 acres of prime land at Shamshabad, near            E
new International Airport of Hyderabad, several exemptions
such as stamp-duty and registration expenses, subsidized
power, all external infrastructures up to the boundary of SEZ,
tax exemptions/holiday were provided under ICT Policy and
SEZ Act, 2005 justifying that the project would create 45,000          F
new jobs. In addition, land worth about Rs. 1 crore per acre
was given at a price of Rs. 20 lakh per acre. It is further pointed
out that the said project has to be completed within five years
of allotment of land which ended in the year 2011-2012,
however, except developing a skeleton structure of about 7.50          G
lakh SFT against 45 lakh SFT, M/s Indus Techzone Pvt. Ltd.
has failed to develop the project and has not created any new
employment so far.

     22. It is also pointed out that Mis Indus Techzone Pvt. Ltd.,
availed Rs. 175 crores of loans by mortgaging about 75 acres           H
    504      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (2013] 3 S.C.R.


A of land which is shown to have been spent for the development
  of project. The investigating agency is of the opinion that a
  major chunk of the funds was diverted/misappropriated by way
  of fake work orders/RA bills.

        23. No doubt, Mr. Salve, learned senior counsel for the
B appellant pointed out the different stand of the CBI from court
  to court, he also commented upon the reasoning and the
  ultimate conclusion of the trial Judge, namely, the Principal
  Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad for rejecting the bail
  application of the appellant. It is true that after highlighting the
C stand taken by the prosecution as well as the right of the
  accused and taking note of the various aspects, the trial Judge
  was of the view that if the appellant is enlarged on bail, he will
  influence the witnesses, since some of them are on his pay rolls,
  and thereby investigation will suffer a set back. Even if it is
D accepted that the statements have been recorded from those
  employees, as rightly pointed out by the counsel for the CBI,
  the matter is not going to end with their statements.

       24. Mr. Salve, after taking us through various documents/
E correspondences from the Government of Ras Al Khaima
  submitted that in view of the contents of the same and the
  specific stand of the Government of Andhra Pradesh, there is
  no basis for the claim made by the CBI. Though we were taken
  through all those details, it is not proper for this Court to make
F a comment about the acceptability or otherwise at this juncture
  and those materials ought to be considered only at the trial.

        25. As pointed out by Mr. Ashok Bhan, learned senior
  counsel for the CBI, after filing of the charge sheet on
  13.08.2012, in view of further materials, the CBI started
G investigation which is permissible under Section 173(8) of the
  Code to look into the aspects of the involvement of the
  appellant in M/s Indus Projects Ltd. and its group companies,
  viz., M/s Lepakshi Knowledge Hub Private Ltd. as well as M/s
  Indus Techzone Private Limtied. In view of the same,
H undoubtedly, the investigating agency may require further time
 NIMMAGADDA PRASAD v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF 505
      INVESTIGATION [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
to collect all the materials, particularly, the nexus of the appellant   A
with those concerns and the appellant being the beneficiary of
the quantum of the amount secured. In the course of the
arguments, it is also brought to our notice by learned senior
counsel for the CBI that a sitting Minister in-charge of the Ports
had nexus with those transactions. Considering all these                 B
developments, taking note of various details furnished in the
Status Report dated 30.04.2013, we are of the view that though
the appellant is in custody for nearly 11 months, at the same
time, the claim of the premier investigating agency cannot be
underestimated. As pointed out by the CBI, if ultimately it is           c
established, it is a grave economic offence of alienating prime
lands to selected private companies/individuals under the garb
of development 1,1sing deceptive means resulting in.wrongful
ownership and control of material resources detrimental to the
common good. Further, in order to establish all those events,            0
it is the claim of the CBI that documents have to be obtained
from different banks, other private companies/individuals, who
facilitated the said diversion of funds. In addition to the same,
public servants involved in processing of government files have
to be examined apart from private persons/companies. A                   E
higher officer of the investigating agency, namely, DIG of Police,
CBI assured this Court that further investigation is being carried
out at a faster pace and is expected to be completed within
six months.

     26. Unfortunately, in the last few years, the country has been      F
seeing an alarming rise in white-collar crimes, which has
affected the fiber of the country's economic structure.
Incontrovertibly, economic offences have serious repercussions
on the development of the country as a whole. In State of Gujarat
vs. Mohan/al Jitamalji Porwal and Anr. (1987) 2 SCC 364 this             G
Court, while considering a request of the prosecution for
adducing additional evidence, inter alia, observed as under:-

     "5 ..... The entire Community is aggrieved if the economic
     offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not                 H
     506      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2013] 3 S.C.R.

 A         brought to book. A murder may be committed in the heat
           of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic
           offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate
           design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the
           consequence to the Community. A disregard for the
 B         interest of the Community can be manifested only at the
           cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the Community in the
           system to administer justice in an even handed manner
           without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white
           collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the
 c         damage done to the national economy and national
           interest. ... "

          27. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the
    nature of-accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof,
    the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the
  D character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to
    the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence
    of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the
    witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the
    public/State and other similar considerations. It has also to be
  E kept in mind that for the purpose of granting bail, the Legislature
    has used the words "reasonable grounds for believing" instead
    of "the evidence" which means the Court dealing with the grant
    of bail can only satisfy it as to whether there is a genuine case
    against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to
· F produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not
    expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the
    guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

       · 28. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need
 G to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The
   economic offence having deep rooted conspiracies and
   involving huge loss of public funds needs to be viewed seriously
   and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the
   country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the
 H financial health of the country.
NIMMAGADDA PRASAD v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF 507
     INVESTIGATION [P. SATHASIVAM, J.)
      29. Taking note of all these aspects, without expressing any A
opinion on the merits of the case and also with regard to the
claim of the CBI and the defence, we are of the opinion that
the appellant cannot be released at this stage, however, we
direct the CBI to complete the investigation and file charge
sheet(s) as early as possible preferably within a period of four B
months from today. Thereafter, the appellant is free to renew·
his prayer for bail before the trial Court and if any such petition
is filed, the trial Court is free to consider the prayer for bail
independently on its own merits without being influenced by
dis.missal of the present appeal.                                 c
       30. With the above direction, the appeal is dismissed.

R.P.                                        Appeal dismissed.