High Court of Karnataka Grants Anticipatory Bail to Accused in CBI Case for Illegal Iron Ore Extraction and Export. Petitioner, a Dubai resident and Managing Director, granted bail under Section 438 CrPC subject to conditions including surrender of passport and cooperation with investigation.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU In Favour of Accused
  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Shri Prem Chand Grag, accused No.3 in Spl.C.C.No.54/2014, filed a criminal petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeking anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest. The case was registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Bangalore, on the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in W.P.(Civil) No.562/2009, relating to the illegal extraction of iron ore in Bellary and its transportation to Belekeri Port and then to other countries. The petitioner, a resident of Dubai, was the Managing Director of M/s Shri Lal Mahal Limited. The trial court had issued a non-bailable warrant and the CBI had taken out a Red Corner Notice to secure his presence. The petitioner had not been arrested earlier and had been examined by the CBI on several occasions. The court considered the nature of the allegations, the fact that the petitioner was a permanent resident of India with family and property, and that he was willing to cooperate with the investigation. The court held that custodial interrogation may not be necessary and granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions including executing a personal bond of Rs.5,00,000 with two sureties, surrendering his passport, appearing before the trial court within 15 days, and cooperating with the investigation. The court also directed that the petitioner shall not leave the country without prior permission and shall not tamper with evidence or influence witnesses.

Headnote

A) Criminal Procedure Code - Anticipatory Bail - Section 438 CrPC - Custodial Interrogation - Petitioner, a Dubai resident, sought anticipatory bail in a CBI case for illegal iron ore extraction and export - Court granted bail on conditions, noting that custodial interrogation may not be necessary as petitioner had already been examined and was willing to cooperate - Held that anticipatory bail can be granted if there is no likelihood of flight risk or tampering with evidence (Paras 5-6).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the petitioner, accused No.3 in a CBI case for illegal iron ore extraction and export, is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of CrPC.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Petition allowed. Petitioner granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions: executing a personal bond of Rs.5,00,000 with two sureties, surrendering passport, appearing before trial court within 15 days, cooperating with investigation, not leaving India without permission, and not tampering with evidence.

Law Points

  • Anticipatory bail
  • Section 438 CrPC
  • custodial interrogation
  • flight risk
  • cooperation with investigation
  • economic offences
  • Prevention of Corruption Act
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2016 LawText (KAR) (02) 34

Criminal Petition No.8509/2015

2016-02-16

A.V. Chandrashekara

Sri Diljith Singh Ahluwalia for petitioner, Sri C.H. Jadhav for respondent

Shri Prem Chand Grag

Central Bureau of Investigation

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC in a CBI case for illegal iron ore extraction and export.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought enlargement on bail in the event of his arrest in Spl.C.C.No.54/2014 (RC.No.17(A)/2012 of CBI, Bangalore) for offences under Sections 120-B r/w 409, 420 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) & (d) of PC Act.

Filing Reason

Petitioner, accused No.3, apprehended arrest as trial court had issued non-bailable warrant and CBI had taken out Red Corner Notice.

Previous Decisions

Trial court had issued non-bailable warrant; CBI had taken out Red Corner Notice; petitioner had not been arrested earlier.

Issues

Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC given the nature of allegations and his status as a Dubai resident. Whether custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner's counsel argued that petitioner is a permanent resident of India with family and property, willing to cooperate, and has already been examined by CBI; custodial interrogation not necessary. CBI's counsel opposed bail citing serious economic offences and possibility of flight risk.

Ratio Decidendi

Anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 438 CrPC if the accused is willing to cooperate with investigation, there is no likelihood of flight risk or tampering with evidence, and custodial interrogation is not necessary.

Judgment Excerpts

Petitioner is stated to be residing in Dubai. The trial Court has already issued non-bailable warrant to secure his presence. Apart from this, CBI has taken out Red Corner Notice to secure his presence. In the light of the discussion held above, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail.

Procedural History

CBI registered case on direction of Supreme Court in W.P.(Civil) No.562/2009. Charge sheet filed in earlier Crime No.189/2010 at Ankola Police Station. Trial court issued non-bailable warrant and CBI issued Red Corner Notice. Petitioner filed Crl.P. No.8509/2015 for anticipatory bail.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 438
  • Indian Penal Code, 1860: 120-B, 406, 409, 379, 411, 447, 420, 34
  • Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: 13(2), 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d)
  • Karnataka Forest Act, 1963: 24
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Upholds Conviction Under Section 326 IPC for Acid Attack on Woman Refusing Sexual Advances. Sentence Reduced from Five to Three Years Considering Appellant's Young Age and Clean Record.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Due to Inconsistent Evidence and Lack of Credible Witnesses. Conviction under Sections 457, 307, 326, 324 read with 34 IPC fails as prosecution witnesses contradicted each other and medica...