3

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO__________OF 2018
(WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF)
(ARISING FROM THE FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED
05.01.2018 PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT OF
CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR, IN M.CR.C. NO. 3957 OF
2017)

BETWEEN: POSITION OF PARTIES

In the Trial In the High In this

Court Court Court

PEEYUSH BHATIA Accused Petitioner Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Chhattisgarh Prosecution Contesting Contesting

Through Superintendent Agency Respondent Respondent
of Police, Police Anti-
Corruption Bureau,
Raipur, District-Raipur,
Chhattisgarh.

TO
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF
JUSTICE OF INDIA AND HIS
COMPANION JUDGES OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE

PETITIONER ABOVE NAMED

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AGAINST THE FINAL
JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 05.01.2018 PASSED BY
THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR, IN
M.CR.C. NO. 3957 OF 2017.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH

 4
1.This Special Leave Petition arises from final order dated

05.01.2018 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at

Bilaspur, in M.CR.C. No. 3957 of 2017 whereby the Hon’ble

High Court erroneously rejected the bail application under

section 439 for of Criminal Procedure Code filed by the

Petitioner, by a cryptic and perverse order holding there is

no change of circumstances to entertain the bail application.

1A. That the address of the petitioner has been wrongly

mentioned in the impugned judgment’s memo of parties.

Same has been corrected in the Special Leave Petition for

avoiding any hardship to this Hon'ble Court.

2. QUESTIONS OF LAW
A. What is the meaning and ambit of the phrase ‘change in

circumstances’ in relation to consideration and

adjudication of application for bail of an accused during

pendency of trial?

B. Whether the High Court has erred in not appreciating that

apart from others the framing of charges, recoding of some

of the material prosecution witnesses and nothing

incriminatory found in those dispositions qua the

Petitioner?

C. Whether the Criminal Court should refuse bail in cases

where the investigation is complete, charge sheet has been

filed and the trial is likely to take a long time as till date

out of 212 witnesses only nine prosecution witnesses have

 5
been examined and prosecution has to prove 427

documents running into thousands of pages, during trial

specially when the Petitioner has already been inside jail

for more than 25 months?

D. Whether the petitioner does not deserve bail on the rule of

parity when co-accused in this case has been granted bail

by this Hon’ble Court on the period of detention undergone.

E. Whether approach of the Courts below in dismissing the

application of the petitioner for bail, without even

considering any one of the factors and parameters

regarding the same as laid down by this Hon’ble Court and

without assigning any reason is faulty, perverse, against

the settled principles of law?

3. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 2(2)

The Petitioner states that no other petition seeking leave

to Appeal has been filed by the petitioner against the

impugned final judgment and order. No writ appeal lies

against impugned judgment.

4. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 4:

The Annexures P-1 to P- 6 produced along with Special

Leave Petition are true copies of the

pleadings/documents which formed part of the records of

the case in the Court/ Tribunal below against whose

order the leave to appeal is sought for in this petition.

 6
5. The present special leave to appeal is sought on the

following amongst other

GROUNDS
I. Because the Hon'ble High Court has erred in not

appreciating that apart from others the framing of

charges, recoding of some of the material prosecution

witnesses and nothing incriminatory found in those

dispositions qua the Petitioner herein.

II. Because the Hon'ble High Court failed to appreciate that

Petitioner is entitled for grant of bail in the present case

especially in view of the facts that the investigation is

complete, charge sheet has been filed and the trial is

likely to take a long time as till date out of 212 witnesses

only nine prosecution witnesses have been examined

and prosecution has to prove 427 documents running

into thousands of pages, during trial specially when the

Petitioner has already been inside jail for more than 25

months.

III. Because No recovery of any kind is affected from the

present petitioner.

IV. Because the High Court has gravelly erred in dismissing

the bail application by impugned order dated 05.01.2018

holding that since there is no change in circumstances.

The Petitioner has submitted various important change

of circumstances before the High Court which is fatal to

 7
the case of Prosecution. It is respectfully submitted that

apart from other reasons, time period of more than two

year since last bail application before the High Court

itself amounts to change of circumstances and the bail

application of the Petitioner herein ought to have been

heard on merit of the case in hand.

V. BECAUSE none of the prosecution witnesses out of 9

prosecution witnesses examined so far, have given any

legal evidence against the Petitioner to connect with the

alleged crime.

VI. BECAUSE as per the final report filed by the Police

before the trial, dated 15.06.2015 under Section 173 of

the CrPC the only the following allegation is made

against the Petitioner –

“Accused Public Servant was posted as district

manager NAN Gariyaband at the time of the

incident. His official duty was to procure only rice

of quality standards fixed (standard quality) by

the government by reasonable checking through

quality inspectors working under him. Instead of

this he was involved in the criminal conspiracy of

organized corruption and collected sub-standard

rice and illegally collected money from concerned

rice millers a fixed amount on a per quintal rate.

Out of the illegal money so collected the accused

 8
used to send share of illegal collection at the rate

of Rs 4 per quintal to manager PDS Shiv shankar

Bhat in the headquarters Raipur. The same

money was distributed by Shiv Shankar Bhat to

Managing Director Anil Tuteja and Chairman Dr

Alok Shukla as per their demand. This accused

had given a slip of paper to Arvind Dhruv in

which the account of illegal collection in

December 2014 in Gariyaband district is given. In

this connection the report of handwriting expert

is received which confirms the handwriting of

Motilal Sahu. It is proved by the statements of

Arvind Dhruv, Shiv Shankar Bhat, Jeetram

Yadav, R P Pathak, voice transcripts and

statements of witnesses after showing voice

transcripts to them and the slips of paper seized

from Arvind Dhruv and report of handwriting

expert”.

VII. BECAUSE in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40 it

was held by this Hon’ble Court that;

“39. Coming back to the facts of the present case, both

the courts have refused the request for grant of bail on
two grounds: the primary ground is that the offence
alleged against the accused persons is very serious
involving deep-rooted planning in which, huge
financial loss is caused to the State exchequer; the
 9
secondary ground is that of the possibility of the
accused persons tampering with the witnesses. In the
present case, the charge is that of cheating and
dishonestly inducing delivery of property andforgery
for the purpose of cheating using as genuine a forged
document. The punishment for the offence is
imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven
years. It is, no doubt, true that the nature of the charge
may be relevant, but at the same time, the punishment
to which the party may be liable, if convicted, also
bears upon the issue. Therefore, in determining
whether to grant bail, both the seriousness of the
charge and the severity of the punishment should be
taken into consideration.
40. The grant or refusal to grant bail lies within the
discretion of the court. The grant or denial is
regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and
circumstances of each particular case. But at the
same time, right to bail is not to be denied merely
because of the sentiments of the community against
the accused. The primary purposes of bail in a
criminal case are to relieve the accused of
imprisonment, to relieve the State of the burden of
keeping him, pending the trial, and at the same time,
to keep the accused constructively in the custody of
the court, whether before or after conviction, to
assure that he will submit to the jurisdiction of the
court and be in attendance thereon whenever his
presence is required.
41. This Court in Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi
Admn.)8 observed that two paramount
considerations, while considering a petition for grant
of bail in a non-bailable offence, apart from the
 10
seriousness of the offence, are the likelihood of the
accused fleeing from justice and his tampering with
the prosecution witnesses. Both of them relate to
ensure the fair trial of the case. Though, this aspect is
dealt by the High Court in its impugned order, in our
view, the same is not convincing.
43. There are seventeen accused persons. Statements of
witnesses run to several hundred pages and the
documents on which reliance is placed by the
prosecution, are voluminous. The trial may take
considerable time and it looks to us that the appellants,
who are in jail, have to remain in jail longer than the
period of detention, had they been convicted. It is not in
the interest of justice that the accused should be in jail
for an indefinite period. No doubt, the offence alleged
against the appellants is a serious one in terms of
alleged huge loss to the State exchequer, that, by itself,
should not deter us from enlarging the appellants on
bail when there is no serious contention of the
respondent that the accused, if released on bail, would
interfere with the trial or tamper with evidence. We do
not see any good reason to detain the accused in
custody, that too, after the completion of the
investigation and filing of the charge-sheet.
XVI. BECAUSE even otherwise, it is a well settled law that

unless there are reasons to the contrary, the accused

under trial should be enlarged on bail. It was held in

State of Rajasthan v. Balchand, (1977) 4 SCC 308

“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
 11
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”
VIII. BECAUSE it is well settled that though the grant of bail is

a discretionary power to be exercised in the facts and

circumstance of each case. In the present case it is vital to

note that the Petitioner is a permanent resident of the

locality and is a person of high reputation in the society.

He is a serving Government Servant. Therefore, there is

no chance of his jumping bail or absconding and/or

tampering with the evidence of the prosecution.

IX. Because there is no likelihood of the Petitioner fleeing

from justice or tampering with evidence.

6. GROUNDS FOR INTERIM RELIEF:

Alongwith the grounds raised in support of the present

special leave petition, it is respectfully submitted that the

Petitioner is inside jail since 15.06.2015 i.e. for about two

year and five months now. Considering the urgent family

need and responsibility as a father of young children, the

presence of the Petitioner is indispensable in his family.

7. MAIN PRAYER:
 12
In aforesaid facts & circumstances, it is most respectfully

prayed that YOUR LORDSHIPS may graciously be

pleased to:-

i) Grant Special Leave to Appeal against the final

order dated 05.01.2017 passed by the High Court

of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, in MCRC. No. 3957 of

2017; and

ii) Pass such other order or orders as the nature and

circumstances of the case may deem fit.

8. PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF:

In aforesaid facts & circumstances, it is most respectfully

prayed that YOUR LORDSHIPS may graciously be

pleased to:-

i) Grant ad-interim bail to the Petitioner till pendency

of the present Special Leave Petition to the

satisfaction of the learned Trial Court in offence

being FIR No. 09/2015 dated 12.02.2015, P.S.-

EOW, Raipur;

ii) Pass such other order or orders as the nature and

circumstances of the case may deem fit.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER
SHALL EVER PRAY AS DUTY BOUND

DRAWN BY FILED BY

MANOHAR PRATAP AJIT SHARMA

PEEYUSH BHATIA ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER
Drawn on: 24.11.2017
Filed on: 09.01.2018
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
 13
CRIMINAL APPPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) NO._______ OF 2018

IN THE MATTER OF:

PEEYUSH BHATIA .…PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF CHHATTISGARH &ANR …RESPONDENT

CERTIFICATE

Certified that the Special Leave Petition is confined only to the

pleadings before the High Court whose order is challenged and

the other documents relied upon in those proceedings. No

additional facts, documents or grounds have been taken

therein or relied upon in the Special Leave Petition. It is

further certified that the copies of the documents/ annexures

attached to the Special Leave Petition are necessary to answer

the question of law raised in the petition or to make out

grounds urged in the Special Leave Petition for consideration

of this Hon’ble Court. This certificate is given on the basis of

the instruction given by the petitioner whose affidavit is filed

in support of the Special Leave Petition.

FILED ON: 09.01.2018

NEW DELHI

FILED BY

AJIT SHARMA
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER
 14
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.______OF 2018
IN THE MATTER OF:

PEEYUSH BHATIA …Petitioner

Versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & …Respondent
ANR.
AFFIDAVIT
I, Kiran Sahu, S/o- Motilal Sahu, aged 40 years, R/o- LIG-13,

Deendayal Upadhayay Nagar, Sector-2, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

presently at New Delhi do hereby solemnly affirm and state as

under:-

1. That I am son and pairokar of petitioner in the

abovementioned Petition, and as such I am aware of the

facts and circumstances of the case, hence entitled to

swear this affidavit.

2. That the contents of the accompanying Special Leave

Petition consisting in paragraph 1 to 8 from pages 3 to 15

accompanied with Synopsis and List of Dates at Pages B

to I and CRLMPs has been read over to me in vernacular

language I say that same are true and correct to the best

of my knowledge, belief and nothing material information

has been concealed therefrom.

3. That the Annexures P-1 to P-6 are true/translated copies

of their respective originals.

 15

4. That no other Special Leave Petition against the order

impugned has been filed by the Petitioner before this

Hon’ble Court.

DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:

I, the above name deponent do hereby verify that the

contents of the above affidavit are true and correct to the best

of my knowledge, belief and nothing material information has

been concealed therefrom. No part it is false.

Verified at New Delhi on this 24th day of November, 2017

DEPONENT
 16
APPENDIX
Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
439. Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding
bail.
(1) A High Court or Court of Session may direct-
(a) that any person accused of an offence and in custody be
released on bail, and if the offence is of the nature specified in
subsection (3) of section 437, may impose any condition
which it considers necessary for the purposes mentioned in
that sub- section;
(b) that any condition imposed by a Magistrate when releasing
an person on bail be set aside or modified: Provided that the
High Court or the Court of Session shall, before granting bail
to a person who is accused of an offence which is triable
exclusively by the Court of Session or which, though not so
triable, is punishable with imprisonment for life, give notice of
the application for bail to the Public Prosecutor unless it is,
for reasons to be recorded in writing, of opinion that it is not
practicable to give such notice.
(2) A High Court or Court of Session may direct that any person
who has been released on bail under this Chapter be arrested and
commit him to custody.
Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code
109. Punishment of abetment if the act abetted is committed in
consequence and where no express provision is made for its
punishment.—Whoever abets any offence shall, if the act abetted is
committed in consequence of the abetment, and no express
provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such abet-
ment, be punished with the punishment provided for the offence.
Explanation.—An act or offence is said to be committed in conse-
quence of abetment, when it is committed in consequence of the
instigation, or in pursuance of the conspiracy, or with the aid
which constitutes the abetment. Illustrations
 17
(a) A offers a bribe to B, a public servant, as a reward for showing A
some favour in the exercise of B’s official functions. B accepts the
bribe. A has abetted the offence defined in section 161.
(b) A instigates B to give false evidence. B, in consequence of the
instigation, commits that offence. A is guilty of abetting that
offence, and is liable to the same punishment as B.
(c) A and B conspire to poison Z. A in pursuance of the conspiracy,
procures the poison and delivers it to B in order that he may
administer it to Z. B, in pursuance of the conspiracy, administers
the poison to Z in A’s absence and thereby causes Z’s death. Here B
is guilty of murder. A is guilty of abetting that offence by
conspiracy, and is liable to the punishment for murder.
CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Punishment—Same as for offence
abetted—According as offence abetted is cognizable or non-
cognizable—According as offence abetted is bailable or non-bailable
—Triable by court by which offence abetted is triable—Non-
compoundable.
Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code
120B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy.—
(1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an
offence punishable with death, 2[imprisonment for life] or rigorous
imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no
express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such
a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted
such offence.
(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a
criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.]
Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code
409. Criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker,
merchant or agent.—Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with
property, or with any dominion over property in his capacity of a
public servant or in the way of his business as a banker, merchant,
factor, broker, attorney or agent, commits criminal breach of trust
 18
in respect of that property, shall be punished with 1[imprisonment
for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code
420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.—
Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person de-
ceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or
destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything
which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted
into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and
shall also be liable to fine.
Section 11 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
11. Public servant obtaining valuable thing, without consideration
from person concerned in proceeding or business transacted by
such public servant.—Whoever, being a public servant, accepts or
obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain for himself, or for
any other person, any valuable thing without consideration, or for a
consideration which he knows to be inadequate, from any person
whom he knows to have been, or to be, or to be likely to be
concerned in any proceeding or business transacted or about to be
transacted by such public servant, or having any connection with
the official functions of himself or of any public servant to whom he
is subordinate, or from any person whom he knows to be interested
in or related to the person so concerned, shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than six months
but which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine.
13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant.—(1) A public
servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,— (a)
if he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts
to obtain from any person for himself or for any other person any
gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward
such as is mentioned in section 7; or

(b) if he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or

attempts to obtain for himself or for any other person, any valuable
 19
thing without consideration or for a consideration which he knows
to be inadequate from any person whom he knows to have been, or
to be, or to be likely to be concerned in any proceeding or business
transacted or about to be transacted by him, or having any
connection with the official functions of himself or of any public
servant to whom he is subordinate, or from any person whom he
knows to be interested in or related to the person so concerned; or

(c) if he dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates or otherwise

converts for his own use any property entrusted to him or under
his control as a public servant or allows any other person so to do;
or
(d) if he— (i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for
any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or (ii)
by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or
for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or
(iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person
any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public
interest; or
(e) if he or any person on his behalf, is in possession or has, at any
time during the period of his office, been in possession for which
the public servant cannot satisfactorily account, of pecuniary
resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of
income.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, “known sources of
income” means income received from any lawful source and such
receipt has been intimated in accordance with the provisions of any
law, rules or orders for the time being applicable to a public
servant.
(2) Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be
punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less
than 3 [four years] but which may extend to 4 [ten years] and shall
also be liable to fine.
//TRUE TYPED COPY //