Y.S. JAGAN MOHAN REDDYversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

                       [2013] 3 S.C.R. 547


                  Y.S. JAGAN MOHAN REDDY                           A
                                v.
           CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
             (Criminal Appeal No. 730 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 -- Factors c
  to be taken into consideration while granting bail - Explained
  - Charge-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 Coffuption Act - Charges relating
  to amassing of huge ill-gotten wealth, allotment of lands on 0
  relaxed norms, abuse of public office, laundering bribe money
  through investment in bogus companies etc. - Further
. investigation in progress - Held: Economic offences having
  deep rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public
  funds, need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave E
  offences affecting economy of the country as a whole and
  thereby posing serious threat to financial health of the
  country, and being a class apart, they need to be visited with
  a different approach in the matter of bail - On going through
  Status Report furnished by CBI and counter affidavit sworn by
  Deputy Inspector General of Police and Chief Investigating F
  Officer, release of appellant at this stage would hamper
  investigation as it may influence the witnesses and tamper with
  the material evidence - However, CBI is directed to complete
  the investigation expeditiously and file the charge sheet(s) -
  Thereafter, appellant is free to renew his prayer for bail before G
  trial court.

     On the orders of the High Court, CBI registered a
 case for various offences under the Penal Code and
                          M7                                       H
    548      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2013) 3 S.C.R.


A Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 relating to amassing
  of huge ill-gotton wealth, conducting media business
  with such money, floating bogus companies with benami
  share holders and laundering the bribe money through
  investment in such companies, allotment of lands, abuse
B of public office, contracts of irrigation projects, special
  relaxations/permissions for real estate ventures, mines
  etc. The appellant, the son of a former Chief Minister, was
  arraigned as accused no. 1 in the case along with 73
  others. Four charge-sheets in the case were filed
c respectively on 31.3.2012, 23.4.2012, 7.5.2012 and
  13.8.2012. The appellant was arrested on 29.5.2012. His
  bail applications filed from time to time were rejected. The
  appellant on 16.11.2012 again unsuccessfully moved an
  application before the Special Court for default/ regular
  bail. The High Court also declined his prayer.
0
          Dismissing the appeal, the Court

       HELD: 1.1. Economic offences constitute a class
  apart and need to be visited with a different approach in
E the matter of bail. Such 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
  and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health
F of the country. [para 15) [561-D-E]

       1.2. In the instant case, in the Status Report, the CBI
  has assured that the investigation is being carried out
  expeditiously as directed by this Court. It is stated that
  among 7 issues as referred to in the earlier order dated
G 5.10.2012 of this Court, the CBI has completed the
  investigation with respect to one matter and investigation
  is progressing with regard to other 6 issues also and is
  in the final stage with respect to three of them wherein
  charge sheet/final report is likely to be filed shortly. [para
H 1OJ (556-F-H]
 Y.S. JAGAN MOHAN REDDY v. CENTRAL BUREAU 549
              OF INVESTIGATION
    1.3. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind      A
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,
reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the           B
accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the
witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the
public/State and other similar considerations. [para 16]
[561-F-G]
     1.4. On going into all the details furnished by CBI in      C
the form of Status Report and the counter affidavit dated
06.05.2013 sworn by the Deputy Inspector General of
Police and Chief Investigating Officer, the huge magnitude
of the case and also the request of the CBI asking for
further time for completion of the investigation in filing the   D
charge sheet(s), this Court is of. the opinion that the
release of the appellant at this stage may hamper the
investigation. The apprehension raised by CBI cannot be
lightly ignored considering the claim that the appellant is
the ultimate beneficiary and the prime conspirator in huge       E
monetary transactions. However, the CBI is directed to
complete the investigation expeditiously and file the
charge sheet(s). Thereafter, the appellant is free to renew
his prayer for bail before the trial court. [para 14 and 17]
[561-B, G-H; 562-A-B]                                            F
    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 730 of 2013.

    From the Judgment & Order dated 24.01.2013 of the High
Court of A.P. at Hyderabad in CRLP No. 8750 of 2012.             G
     Harish N. Salve.. Mukul Rohatgi, SushiLKumar, K.V.
Vishwanathan, Gopal Sankaranarayan, Neeranjan Reddy,
Sriram, Subash Reddy, Senthil Jagadeesan for the Appellant.

    Ashok Bhan, Mukul Gupta. D.L. Chidananda, Anjali             H
    550      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2013] 3 S.C.R.


A   Chauhan, B.V. Balramdas for the Respondent.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1. Leave granted.

B        2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and
    order dated 24.01.2013 passed by the High Court of
    Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Petition
    No. 8750 of 2012 in R.C. 19(A)/2011-CBl-Hyderabad, whereby
    the High Court dismissed the petition filed by the appellant
c   herein for grant of bail.

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

    Brief facts:
D
       4. (a) 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
  CBI"), Hyderabad, registered a case being R.C. No. 19(A)/
E 2011-CBl-Hyderabad dated 17.08.2011 under Section 120B
  read with Sections 420, 409 and 477-A of the Indian Penal
  Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and Section 13(2) read with
  Section 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
  1988 (in short "the PC Act") against Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy
F (A-1), Member of Parliament and 73 others.

        (b) The appellant-Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy was named as
    an accused at SI. No. 1 in the FIR dated 17.08.2011 (after the
    chargesheet was framed, he was arrayed as A-1 and
    hereinafter, he will be referred to as A-1 ).
G
       (c) During investigation, it was revealed that Y.S. Jagan
  Mohan Reddy (A-1), son of Late Dr. Y.S. Rajasekhara Reddy,
  the then Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, has adopted several
  ingenious ways to amass illegal wealth which resulted in great
H public injury. The then Chief Minister of the State abused his
 Y.S. JAGAN MOHAN REDDY v. CENTRAL BUREAU 551
       OF INVESTIGATION [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

public office to the benefit of his son Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy      A
(A-1 ). Since May, 2004, A-1 started floating a number of
companies including M/s Jagathi Publications Pvt. Ltd., which
was originally incorporated as a private limited company on
14.11.2006 and later converted into a public limited company
on 12.01.2009. At the relevant time, Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy         B
(A-1) was designated as the Authorised Signatory to operate
the Bank accounts of the said Company. He was appointed
as a Director and Chairman with effect from 21.06.2007. It is
alleged that A-1 floated M/s Jagathi Publications Pvt. Ltd. with
an objective of conducting media business with the ill-gotten       c
wealth. Most of the shareholders were alleged to be the
benamis ofY.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy (A-1). Further, as a quid
pro quo to these investments, the benefits were received by
various investors including the companies/individuals from the
decisions of the State Government in allotment of lands for         D
Special Economic Zones (SEZs), contracts for irrigation
projects, special relaxations/permissions for real estate
ventures, mines etc. It is further revealed that Y.S. Jagan Mohan
Reddy (A-1) laundered the bribe money by routing it through
various individuals and companies and getting investments
made by them in his companies at a high premium.                    E

      (d) On 31.03.2012, 23.04.2012 and 07.05.2012, the CBI
filed first, second and third charge sheet(s) respectively before
the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad and the appellant
was arrayed as A-1 in all the charge sheets. The Principal          F
Special Judge for CBI Cases took cognizance of the charge
sheet dated 31.03.2012 which was numbered as CC No. 8 of
2012. The appellant was arrested on 27.05.2012 for his
involvement and complicity in the case and presently, he is in
judicial custody. On 29.05.2012 and 30.05.2012, the Principal       G
Special Judge for CBI Cases tock cognizance of second and
third charge sheet(s) which were numbered as CC Nos. 9 and
10 of 2012 respectively.

     (e) On 29.05.2012, the appellant filed Crl. M.P. No. 1055/
                                                                    H
    552      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 3 S.C.R.


A 2012 in CC No. 8 of 2012 before the Court of the Special
  Judge for OBI Cases at Hyderabad for grant of regular bail
  under Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
  (in short 'the Code'). The Special Judge, by order dated
  01.06.2012, dismissed his application for bail.
B
       (f) The CBI filed Criminal Petition Nos. 4743 and 4744 of
  20·12 before the High Court for the remand of A-1 for a period
  of 5 days. The High Court, by order dated 02.06.2012, allowed
  the petitions and remanded A-1 to the custody of the CBI from
  03.06.2012 to 07.06.2012. By further orders dated 08.06.2012
C in Crl. M.P. No. 4785 of 2012 in Criminal Petition No. 4743 of
  2012, the custody was extended to a further period of 2 days.

       (g) Being aggrieved, the appellant moved the High Court
  for enlarging him on bail in Criminal Petition No. 5211 of 2012.
D The High Court, taking note of serious nature of the offence and
  having regard to personal and financial clout of the appellant
  (A-1) and finding that it cannot be ruled out that witnesses
  cannot be influenced by him in case he is released on bail at
  this stage, by impugned order dated 04.07.2012, dismissed
E his bail application.

      (h) Being aggrieved by the orders dated 02.06.2012 and
  04.07.2012, the appellant preferred two special leave petitions
  being Nos. 5901 and 5902 of 2012 before this Court. This
F Court, by order dated 09.08.2012, issued notice in SLP (Crl.)
  No. 5902 of2012 and dismissed SLP (Crl.) No. 5901 of2012.

        (i) On 13.08.2012, the CBI filed fourth charge sheet in the
    Court of Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad
    which was numbered as CC No. 14 of 2012.
G
       U) This Court, on coming to know that the investigation is
  continuing in connection with 7 matters, dismissed the special
  leave petition being SLP (Crl.) 5902 of 2012 by order dated
  05.10.2012 with a direction to the CBI to complete the
H investigation as early as possible and to file a consolidated
 Y.S. JAGAN MOHAN REDDY v. CENTRAL BUREAU                     553
       OF INVESTIGATION [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
charge sheet on the remaining 7 issues. This Court also              A
directed the appellant to renew his prayer for bail before the
trial court on completion of the investigation by the CBI.

      (k) On 16.11.2012, the appellant filed Crl. M.P. No. 1938
of 2012 before the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad,
seeking default/statutory bail. On the same day, the appellant       B
filed Crl. M.P. No. 1939 of 2012 in CC No. 8 of 2012 before
the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad, seeking regular
bail. By orders dated 28.11.2012 and 04.12.2012, the Special
Judge rejected the bail applications filed by the appellant herein
in Crl. M.P. No. 1938 of 2012 and Crl. M.P. No. 1939 of 2012         C
respectively.

     (I) The 'appellant preferred Criminal Petition No. 8576 of
2012 before the High Court for grant of bail which came to be
dismissed on 24.12.2012. Being aggrieved, the appellant              D
preferred Criminal Petition No. 8750 of 2012 before the High
Court. The High Court, by order dated 24.01.2013, dismissed
the petition filed by the appellant herein.

     (m) Being aggrieved by the order of the High Court, the
appellant herein has preferred this appeal by way of special         E
leave.

     5. Heard Mr. Harish N. Salve, Mr. Mukul Rohatgi and Mr.
K.V. Vishwanathan, learned senior counsel for the appellant-
accused and Mr. Ashok Bhan and Mr. Mukul Gupta, learned              F
senior counsel for the respondent-CBI.

     6. The CBI has filed a counter affidavit dated 06.05.2013,
sworn by a senior officer, namely, Deputy Inspector General of
Police and Chief Investigating Officer in RC No. 19(A)/2011-         G
CBI-HYO and has furnished various information such as
allegations against the appellant, companies/persons involved,
investigation conducted so far and progress of the investigation
with regard to certain companies/persons. During the course
of hearing, the CBI also circulated the Status Report in respect     H
    554          SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2013] 3 S.C.R.


A   of the FIR being No. 19(A)/2011-CBl-HYD regarding 7 issues
    mentioned in the order of this Court dated 05.10.2012.
    Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, by drawing
    our attention to various materials/details including the fact that
    the appellant is in custody nearly for a period of 1 year and
8   many persons alleged to have been involved in those
    transactions are not in custody and no steps have been taken
    by the CBI for their arrest, submitted that the appellant may be
    enlarged on bail after imposing appropriate conditions.

       7. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, particularly,
C the stand of the CBI, it is useful to refer the earlier order passed
  by this Court on 05.10.2012 which reads as under:

          "SLP (Crl.)No. 5902 of 2012

               Heard Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, learned senior
D         advocate appearing for the petitioner at some length.
                Mr. Mohan Parasaran, learned ASG appearing on
          behalf of the CBI, submitted before us a report from which
          it appears that the investigation is still going on in
          connection with seven matters. In paragraph 9 of the
E
          report, it is stated as under:

                " ..... The matters which are pending investigation
          also involved investigation into various serious economic
          offences involving hundreds of crores of rupees. The major
F         matters which are now under investigation relating to
          conspiracies distinctly involving the following entities which
          by themselves are independent to each other and are,
          therefore, distinct conspiracies.
           (i)     Sandur Power Co. Ltd.
G
           (ii)    Grant of mining lease to Bharti Cements/Raghuram
                   Cements which are companies none other than
                   own companies of A1, Mr. JMR.

           (iii)   Penna Cements and Group companies
H
Y.S. JAGAN MOHAN REDDY v. CENTRAL BUREAU 555
      OF INVESTIGATION [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
   (iv)     Dalmia Cements                                          A

   (v)      India Cements

   (vi)     Investment through paper companies based in
            Kolkata and Mumbai, popularly known as suit case
            companies.                                              B

   (vii)    lndu Projects, Lepakshi knowledge Hub ·

  The amounts involved and which is subject matter of
  investigation in the above cases as per estimates exceed .C
  Rs.3000 crores."

                                      (emphasis in the original)
        . Mr. Parasaran stated that the CBI is making
  investigation without wasting any time and he assured the         D
  Court that the investigation will be completed as early as
  possible arid on completion of the investigation the CBI
  shall submit one final charge-sheet.
         On hearing counsel for the parties and on going
  through the report submitted by the CBI, we are not inclined      E
  to interfere in the matter at this stage.
           The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
        It will be, however, open to the petitioner to renew
  his prayer for bail before the trial court on completion of       F
  the investigation by the CBI on the issues as indicated
  above and submission of the final charge-sheet.
        In case; such a prayer is made, the Court shall
  consider the prayer for bail independently, on its own            G
  merits, without being influenced by the dismissal of the
  special leave petition.
  SLP(Crl.)No.5946 of 2012

           Put up after two weeks."                                 H
    556      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     (2013] 3 S.C.R.


A        8. Mr. Ashok Bhan, learned senior counsel for the CBI, by
    pointing out the penultimate paragraph in the order dated
    05.10.2012, i.e., "It will be, however, open to the petitioner to
    renew his prayer for bail before the trial Court on completion
    of the investigation by the CBI on the issues as indicated above
s   and submission of the final charge-sheet", submitted that in
    view of the fact that the investigation is still continuing in respect
    of the transaction(s) with certain companies/persons, the
    present application for bail is not maintainable.

C      9. It is relevant to note that in the order dated 05.10.2012,
  this Court noted the statement made by learned ASG, who
  appeared for the CBI, that the investigation relating to
  conspiracies distinctly involving 7 entities which by themselves
  are independent to each other requires further time. According
  to learned senior counsel for the CBI, they require 4-6 months'
D time to complete the investigation in respect of the 7 entities
  as mentioned in the order dated 05.12.2012 and to file a
  charge sheet. In support of the above claim, the CBI pointed
  out various instances from the counter affidavit as well as from
  the Status Report justifying their stand for the dismissal of the
E bail application.

        10. In the Status Report, the CBI has assured that the
  investigation is being carried out expeditiously as directed by
  this Court. It is stated that among 7 issues, the CBI has
F completed the investigation with respect to Mis Dalmia
  Cements and consequently filed the charge sheet in the Court
  of Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad on 08.04.2013.
  According to the CBI, presently, the investigation is progressing
  with regard to other 6 issues also and the CBI is in the final
G stages of investigation with respect to the following, viz., Mis
  India Cements, Penna Cements and Investments through
  Kolkata companies. It is also assured to this Court that the CBI
  is likely to file charge sheet/final reports in the above said three
  issues shortly.
H
     Y.S. JAGAN MOHAN REDDY v. CENTRAL BUREAU 557
           OF INVESTIGATION [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
         11. The CBI in its Status Report has elaborated the            A
    progress with regard to the investigation in the remaining issues
    which are as under:-

    Mis Dalmia Cements (Bharat) Ltd.
1
1         (a) The investigation has revealed that M/s Dalmia            B
    Cements (Bharat) Ltd. invested an amount of Rs. 95 crores into
    M/s Raghuram Cements Ltd. represented by Y.S Jagan Mohan
    Reddy. In quid pro quo to the investments, A-1, through his
    influence over his father Late Dr. Y.S. Rajasekhara Reddy
    facilitated the grant and transfer of mining lease to the extent    C
    of 407 hectares in Kadapa District of Andhra Pradesh to M/s
    Dalmia Cements. The CBI has highlighted the amount involved
    and the facilities provided by the father of the appellant. It is
    further highlighted in the Status Report that the searches were
    conducted by the Income Tax Department, New Delhi at the            o
    offices of Mis Dalmia Cements (Bharat) Ltd. and the residential
    premises of their employees.
         (b) It is also highlighted that as per the pre-arranged
    agreement between Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy (A-1), V. Vijay            E
    Sai Reddy (A-2) and Puneet Dalmia, M/s Dalmia Cements
    (Bharat) Ltd. sold of their stake in M/s Raghuram Cements Ltd.
    to M/s PARFICIM, France, for a total consideration of Rs. 135
    crores out of which, an amount of Rs. 55 crores was paid to
    Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy (A-1) between 16.05.2010 and
    13.06.2011, in cash through hawala channels, and the details        F
    of the said payments were found in the material seized by the
    Income Tax Department, New Delhi.
         (c) The CBI has further alleged that M/s Dalmia Cements
    (Bharat) Ltd. have returned the alleged sale proceeds to Y.S.       G
    Jag an Mohan Reddy (A-1) in cash through hawala channels
    which clearly establish that the initial payment of Rs. 95 crores
    was only illegal gratification for the undue benefits received by
    them from the Government of Andhra Pradesh and was not
    genuine investments. It is further submitted that the charge        H
    558     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 3 S.C.R.


A sheet has already been filed with regard to the same on
  08.04.2013 against A-1 and 12 others under various sections .
  of the IPC and the PC Act.

    M/s Sandur Power Company Ltd.

B       (a) Regarding the investigation relating to M/s Sandur
   Power Company Ltd., it is stated by the CBI that Y.S. Jagan
   Mohan Reddy (A-1) was the Director of this Company from
   16.06.2001 to 11.01.2010. Mis Sandur Power Company Ltd ..
  was incorporated on 23.10.1998 by M.B. Ghorpade and
C subsequently, Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy (A-1) joined the
  company during June 2001 along with the Board of Directors,
  viz., Harish C. Kamarthy and JJ. Reddy. It is alleged by the
  CBI that the Company is closely held by Y.S. Jagan Mohan
   Reddy (A-1 ). The CBI also highlighted various share
D transactions amounting to Rs. 124.60 crores with two Mauritius
  based companies, viz., M/s 2i Capital and M/s Pluri Emerging
  Company by Mis Sandur Power Company Ltd. It is projected
  by the CBI that the above said amount is of A-1 which was
  routed through the Mauritius based companies. It is also
E highlighted that the role of Nimmagadda Prasad (A-3), who is
  currently under judicial custody is also being investigated for
  the same. Vijay Sai Reddy (A-2), along with Y.S. Jagan Mohan
  Reddy (A-1), was the brain behind this conspiracy inasmuch
  as A-2 had floated fictitious companies in Chennai so as to
F enable round tripping or routing monies into M/s Sandur Power
  Company Ltd. from India and foreign countries through
  companies falsely created in Chennai as well as in certain
  foreign countries.
       (b) It is also pointed out by the CBI that notice has also
G been issued to one Maiank Mehta, who is suspected to be the
  person who handled the routing of money of Y.S. Jagan Mohan
  Reddy (A-1) and notice has been issued for his presence in
  India for examination and interrogation. The said person is
  presently based in Hong Kong and is refusing to come to India
H
    560      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2013) 3 S.C.R.


A   Mis India Cements Ltd.
  The CBI has highlighted the investigation relating to Mis India
  Cements Ltd. and the various amounts exchanged between the
  parties. In respect of the above, according to the CBI, they had
  made illegal quid pro quo investments to the tune of Rs.140
B crores into the group companies of Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy
  (A-1} and had received several benefits in the form of
  permissions granted for utilization/additional quantity of water
  from Kagna and Krishna Rivers and lease of land. It is also
  pointed out that the investigation in the case is almost complete
C except few more crucial witnesses have to be examined. The
  CBI also pointed out the details of investigation relating to
  investment through paper companies based in Kolkata and
  Mumbai, popularly known as suit case companies. Since
  investigation is on a half way, we are not referring all those
D details mentioned in the Status Report.
       12. It is further pointed out that during investigation, a total
  number of 140witnesses including IAS officers and concerned
  Ministers have been examined and 352 documents were
  collected. Accordi_ng to the CBI, out of these, some more crucial
E witnesses have to be examined.
        13. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant
  pointed out that after the order dated 05.10.2012, the CBI is
  not justified in prolonging the same just to continue the custody
F of the appellant. It was also highlighted that even according to
  the CBI, several Ministers and IAS officers are involved, but no
  one has been arrested so far. As far as those allegations are
  concerned, it is the claim of the CBI that considering the huge
  magnitude of transactions, various beneficiaries, companies/
  persons involved with A-1 and his associates, the CBI is taking
G effective steps for early completion of the same. Though
  learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that in view
  of non-compliance of Section 167 of the Code the appellant is
  entitled to statutory bail, in view of enormous materials placed ·
  in respect of distinct entities, various transactions etc. and in
H the light of the permission granted by this Court in the order
 Y.S. JAGAN MOHAN REDDY v. CENTRAL BUREAU 559
       OF INVESTIGATION [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

citing frivolous reasons. It is suspected that he is being          A
influenced by Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy (A-1) and Vijay Sai
Reddy (A-2) which amply prove that the witnesses are being
influenced by these persons in this case.

Grant of Mining Lease to Bharti Cements/Raghuram                    B
Cements:

It is pointed out by the CBI that investigation is under progress
regarding grant of mining lease of limestone to Bharti Cements/
Raghuram Cements which are the companies owned by Y.S.
Jagan l\)tohan Reddy (A-1 ). It is claimed by the CBI that during   C
the period under review, they have collected nearly 400
documents running into thousands 9f,pages from various
Departments/Banks including Oriental Bank of Commerce,
Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, Koramangala, Bangalore, Head
Office, Gurgaon etc. for disbursement of loan of Rs. 200 crores     D
violating the bank guidelines and rules. It is also stated that
the investigation disclosed the payment of illegal gratification
of Rs. 30 crores to Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy (A-1) by
Nimmagadda Prasad (A-3) for the wrongful gain obtained by
A-3 from the Government of Andhra Pradesh in connection with        E
awarding a project consisting of development of two Sea Ports
and an Industrial Corridor as VANPIC Project and falsification
of documents to cover up the said payment etc.

Mis lndu Projects Ltd. (M/s Lepakshi Knowledge Hub Pvt.
                                                                    F
Ltd. and M/s Indus Tech Zone Pvt. Ltd.)

The CBI has pointed out that the investigation is in progress in
respect of the above said group of companies. In the Status
Report, the CBI has highlighted a number of details about the
nexus of the appellant along with those companies. Since the        G
investigation is still under progress in respect of those
companies, we are not highlighting all those details furnished
by the CBI in the Status Report.

                                                                    H
Y.S. JAGAN MOHAN REDDY v. CENTRAL BUREAU                     561
      OF INVESTIGATION [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
dated 05.10.2012, we are unable to accept the argument of            A
learned senior counsel for the appellant.

     14. On going into all the details furnished by the CBI in the
form of Status Report and the counter affidavit dated
06.05.2013 sworn by the Deputy Inspector General of Police
                                                                     8
and Chief Investigating Officer, Hyderabad, without expressing
any opinion on the merits, we feel that at this stage, the release
of the appellant {A-1) would hamper the investigation as it may
influence the witnesses and tamper with the material evidence.
Though it is pointed out by learned senior counsel for the
appellant that since the appellant is in no way connected with       C
the persons in power, we are of the view that the apprehension
raised by the CBI cannot be lightly ignored considering the
claim that the appellant is the ultimate beneficiary and the prime
conspirator in huge monetary transactions.
                                                                     D
     15. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need
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        E
country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the
financial health of the country.

     16. 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     F
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.                       G

     17. Taking note of all these facts and the huge magnitude
of the case and also the request of the CBI asking for further
time for completion of the investigation in filing the charge
sheet(s), without expressing any opinion on the merits, we ar~       H
                                                                          I




    562       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  f2013J 3 S.C.R.

A of the opinion that the release of the appellant at this stage may
  hamper the investigation. However, we direct the CBI to
  complete the investigation and file the charge sheet(s) within
  a period of 4 months from today. Thereafter, as observed in
  the earlier order dated 05.10.2012, the appellant is free to
B 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 dismissal of the present appeal.

           18. With the above observation, the appeal is dismissed.
c
    R.P.                                         Appeal dismissed.