IN THE COURT OF 0. P. SAINI: SPL. JUDGE, CBI (04) (2G Spectrum Cases), NEW DELHI.

CC No. 01/11
CBI Vs, A. Raja and others

15.05.2012

Present;

Ms. Sonia Mathur Spi. Pp, Sh. A. K. Singh and Sh. A. K. Rao Sr. PPs for eBl with 10 SP Vivek Priyadarshi. Accused A. Raja in judicial Ramesh Sharma
Advocates. custody

with Sh.
Sh. Manu
Mew

Gupta
and

Sr. Advocate
Sh. Babanjeet

with

Singh

ORDER

This order

shall dispose of bail

application

dated

09.05.2012 filed by accused A. Raja. 2. The instant case was registered on 21.10.2009

against
others
read 1988,

unknown officials of Department of Telecommunications
private persons/companies under sections and for the offences punishable 120-8 IPe ,
Act ..

(DDT), Govt. of India, unknown

with on

13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention allegations

of Corruption and

of criminal conspiracy

criminal Unified
by

misconduct, Access Department

in respect of allotment of Letters (UAS). Licences
and

of Intent,
spectrum

Services

rhe
were

of Telecommunications.

Following

allegations

leveled in the FIR :-

(a)

The entry fee for [he new pan India year
2008 was kept

UAS licences in the
Df'P;1 rtmenr

bv

of

:2:

Telecommunications price the
Cellular

(DOT)
Mobile

as Rs.1658 Crores,
Telephone Service

at

which

(CMTS)

licences were awarded by DOT after auction in the year
2001. These VAS licences, issued in 2008 were issued on

first-come bidding.
(b)

first-served

basis

without

any

competitive

A press release was issued by DOT on 24.9.2007, which appeared in the newspapers
that the new applications .for

on 25.9.2007, mentioning
UAS licences will not be

accepted by the DOT after· L 1 0.2007

till further orders.

However applications received

upro 25.09.2007 only were rhe recommendations of India (TRAI) that no of Access Service

considered, which was also against of Telecom Regulatory .Authorirv

cap should be placed on (he number Providers in any service area.

the DOT in a manner whic~ resulted inro wrongful gain to certain companies. Further,

suspect officials information
to

of DoT

.

there

had

selectively

are allegations .

that the

leaked

the

some of the applicants

regarding the date

of issuance of letter of intent

on ] 0.01.2008.

.

In rhe letter rha:

.

of intent, an arbitrary condition whosoever deposits [he' fees some
(~l:;

was incorporated

per conditions in Leners
be the firsrro get license.

of Intent, i.e. LOIs) first, would
Since

of the applica nts,

who' held [his prior

:3:

information, were ready

with the amount and they were
Thus,

able to deposit the fee earlier than others. was allegedly shown
the information
to

favour

some applicants

by way of leaking

about the date of issuance

of letter of

intent.

(d)

Although, the FDl limit was increased December, 2005,. bur restriction
imposed

from 49 to 74% in lock-in period or

there

was no

on sale of equity

or issuance of

additional equity. As a result of this Mis. Swan Telecom Pvt. Ltd. (A-6), which paid
to

D.OT Rs. 1537 Crares for its 45% equity to

UAS Licences of 13 circles, offloaded

Mis Etisalat of UAE .Ior Rs. 4200 Crores. Similarly, Mis. Unitech Wireless ( Group of 08 companies),

which paid to 22 circles,

DOT Rs.1658 Crores

for VAS Licences

orall

offloaded its 60% equity to M/s Telenor of Norway for Rs 6100 Crores. These stakes
were
Out sold

by the said

companies even before the roll
The estimated loss
these two companies
to

of services by them.

Government
,

by' gram of licences to

alone comes to Rs. 7] 05 Crores, On

pro rata basis, the estimated

loss for 811 I 22 VAS Licences

issued in 2008 was more than Rs, 22000 Crores 3. After investigation,
eBl

filed its charge

sheet in rhe

Court on 02.04.2011 against

twelve accused

persons, charging

them under Sections 120- Bread
and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d)

with 420, 468 fwd 471 of fPC of PC Act and also charging the under Sections

accused with substantive offences

420) 468 and

471 of IPe and supplementary
five additional

13(2)
accused

read with 13(1)(d) of ,PC Act and a
sheet was filed on 25.04.2011 persons for facilitating against and receipt

charge

payment of bribe of Rs. 200 crore.

4.

Vide order dated 22.10.2011, charges were framed
I

against the accused persons under Sections 120-8 read with
409, 420, 468 and 471 IPe and Section 7, or in alternative Section 11 read with Section 12 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d)
of PC Act. Accused A. Raja has also been charged for substantive

offences under these Sections. 5. The case
is presently and as many at [he stage of recording
FlS

of
into

prosecution evidence
more [han 1600 pages,

42 witnesses, running

have been recorded . the arguments
CIt

.§:.

I have

heard

the' bar and

have

carefully gone through

the record. by Sh. Ramesh Gupta, learned Sr.

L
Advocate,

It is submitted

for the applicant/

accused that all other accused,

charged in the case, have been enlarged on bail by different
. Courts over a period of time. It is submirred that accused Vinod

Goenka, Sanjay Chandra, Han Nair were enlarged
vide

Gautam Doshi, Surender Pipara and
on bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

order dated

23.1] .201 J. It is further Karunanithi,

submitted

chat

accused Sharad KUn1.1f, Kanimozhi

Karim Morani,

Rajiv Aggarwal and Asif Balwa have also been granted baiJ by
the Hon'ble Delhi IIigh Court vide order dated 28.1] .201:1. 1t is

further submitted that accused Shahid Usman Balwa and R. K.
Chando1ia were granted bail by this Court vide orders dated

:5:

29.11.2011 Sidharath

and 01.12.2011:

It is further submitted

that accused
Supreme that since all

Behura has been granted bail by the Hon'ble
It is submitted

Court vide order dated 09:05.2012.

other accused

have been granted

bail, applicant/

accused A.

Raja may also be granted the benefit of baiJ on principle of parity, more so, in the light of bail to accused Sidharath Behura,
who was Secretary, DoT,at the relevant time.

8.

It is further submitted that applicant/
02.02.2011 that his further detention It is further

accused is in
is in custody
that

custody since
would not

and the period of his detention
submitted
CIS

quite long. It is submitted serve

any purpose.

accused is not in a position to. influence any witness longer a Minister.
It is further submitted that accused

he is no

is also not evidence is Court. It is

in a position to tamper with the evidence as entire documentary and is lying in the custody of this

further submitted

that accused has deep roots in the society and
of his fleeing from justice. It is further

there is no likelihood

submitted
prosecution wimesses

tI12t

charges
already

have' already
recorded been recorded.
to

been

framed

and
as 41

evidence have

is 'being

and as many It is submitted

that

accused is ready

and willing

abide by any condition

that may

be imposed upon him by this'Court.

9.

lt is further

submitted

that bail is The rule »nd jail is

an exception

and

this principle has been reiterar cd by [he Court in Sanjay Chandra's case reponed
of the accused will not serve ns

Hon'ble Supreme
Saniay Chandra

Vs. CBt 2011 XlI AD (SC) 65. It is submitted
:1 ny

that further detention

purpose.

:6:

My attention has been invited to the following case law:
(1) Sanjay

Chandra Vs. CBI,2011 XII AD(SC) 65; Kumar And Ors. Vs. CBI 2011 V AI! (CRI.) (DHC)

(2) Sharad

517; (3) R. Vasudevan Vs. CBI, 2010 [1J JCC 642: (4) Dipak Shubhashchandra Mehta Vs. C.E.I. & AnT., 2012 [ll

JCC 757;
(5) Suresh decided
decided

Kalmadi Vs.

em,

bail-application

No. 1692 of 201].

by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 09.01.2012; Behura Vs. CBI,Criminal Appeal No. 790 of 2012
and by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 09.05.2012;

(6) Sidhararh

(7) Kulbhushan
2010,

Prashar VE.

em,

Bail Application

No.

1353 01

decided by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 11.0S.2012. The relevant portions of case law have been read ar made may be

10.

the bar. It is prayed that ill the light of the submissions and the case law referred
enlarged on bail.

above, applicant/

accused

11.
strongly

On the other
opposed

hand, bail application

has been Sh. A. K.
has also been

by learned Sr. Public Prosecutor under Section 409

Singh on the ground that the applicant/ accused charged with

the offence

JPC, which is rhill

punisha ble with life imprisonment. accused

It is fu rther submitted

obtained a bribe of Rs. 200 crore

by misusing his Behura

official position. It is submitted did not between receive

that accused 'Sidharath there who

any bribe and) as such,

is no parity was Minister,
Behura,

applicant/ accused A. Raja,

MOC&1T, at the relevant time, and accused

Sidharath

:7:
,

who

was Secretary; Minister,

DoT. It is further MOC~IT, in May

submitted 2007 the and

that

accused

became

immediately players.
It

thereafter
submitted

started hobnobbing with

private

is

that he was Minister and: as such, was incharge of
justice and fair

the Ministry and was responsible for ensuring

play in the grant of UAS Licences, but he himself subverted

the

process and granted licences to
subverting the administrative

ineligible

-applicants

by

process .. 'It is further submitted

that all these licences have since been cancelled ..
12. recorded It is further submitted that evidence is being It is

and only 41 witnesses have been that if the accused is enlarged
Oil

recorded.

submitted

bail, witnesses

mny It lS

not feel safe and may not depose fearlessly

in the Coun.

further submitted that applicant/ accused is resident of stare

of

Tamil Nadu and many witnesses are from that state and they
may not come forward to· depose submitted influence Ministry that there

freely

and fearlessly.
that accused

Jl is may

is every possibility

the witnesses,

who are from state 'of Tamil Nadu and
rhar the issue of a Limited

of DDT. It is further submitted

company known as Delphi Investment
still being investigated. It is submitted

of Mauritius

is

that it is also being
received

investigated

if the applicant/ accused had

another

amount further

of Rs. 200 crore as bribe from another submitted that there is no pari ry between

company.

lr is
!t is the

the present

applicant/
submitted

accused A. Raja and other
that a balance

accused' persons.
between

may be rnainrained

interest of the prosecution and personal liberty of the accused. It

I
is submitted that in the instant

.

:8:

case, in the interest

of fair trial, may be

accused may not be enlarged on bail and the' application dismissed, 1J. I have carefully considered the submissions

made at

the bar in the light of material on record.
~ In Sanjay Chandra Vs.

eBI

(supra), while granting
in paras

bail to the accused, Hon'ble Supreme. Court observed
16 and 25 as under: "16. This Court,
has stated that baH

time and again.
is the rule and
It is also

committal to jail an exception. observed

that

refusai

of

bail

is

a

restriction on the personal individual guaranteed

liberW of the Article, 21

under

of the Constitution.

In the case of Stare (] 997) 4

of Rajasthan Vs. Balchand,

sec

308., this Court opined: "2. The basic rule may perhaps be
tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there fleeing course troubles offences the are circumstances from justice of justice or or shape suggestive of

thwarting
creating of

the
other

in the

repeating and

or intimidating

witnesses

like, by the

petitioner

who seeks

enlargement

on bail from the Court. We but only

do not intend to be exhaustive

I
:9:

illustrative. 3. It is true that the gravity of the

offence involved

is likely
with

to

induce the

petitioner to avoid the course of justice and must weigh us when

considering the question of jail. So also the heinousness
that, while
throughout

of the crime. Even so,
has been on bail
W(lS

the record of the petitioner in this case is
he
in the trial court and he

released after the judgment

of the High

Court, there is nothing to suggest that he has abused the trust placed in him by the court;' his social circumstances also are

not so unfavoura ble in the sense of his being a desperate character or unsocial element who is likely to betray the

confidence that the court may 'place in
him to
ttl rn

up, to take justice He is stared

8[

the

hands of court.

to be a

young man of 27 years with a family to

maintain. The petitioner being
the absconsion can be taken

circumstances

and

the
this

social milieu do not militate against the granted
bail
(H

stage. At the same time any possibility of or evasion or . other abuse . care of by a direction that

:10: the petitioner wiJl report himself before

the police fonnight.

station at Baren once every the facts of the

25. Coming back

to

present
refused

case,

both .the Courts have for grant of bail on

the request

two grounds :- The primary ground is
that offence
persons rooted

alleged against the accused

is very serious involving deep planning in which, huge financial
to

loss is caused the secondary' of

the State Exchequer

,

ground
the

is .that

the

possibiiiry

accused

persons
In the

tempering present cheating delivery purpose
forged

with the witnesses.

case,
and

the

charge is that' of
inducing forgery' for. 'rhe

dishonestly

of property,

of cheating using as genuine a
docurnent.vThe punishmentof rhe

offence is punishment for a term which
may doubt,

extend

to

seven years. It 1S, no

true that the nature of the charge

may be relevant, the punishment

but at the same time,
'to which the party may

be liable, if convicted,
the issue.
to

(]I~o bears upon
in bait determining both the

Therefore" grant

whether

\
:11;

seriousness
severity taken refusal discretion

of, the

charge

and
should

the
be or

of the punishment into consideration.
to

The grant

grant. bail

lies within

the
or

of the Court. The grant
to

denial is regulated,
the facts and

a large extent, by
of each
time,

circumstances

particular
right

case. I}ut at the same

to bail is' not to be deni~~ me~ely
of the against sentiments of
F

because

the

community
primary

the accused.

The

purposes

of bail jn a cr:iminal the accused

case

are

to

relieve'

of

imprisonment. burden

to relieve the State of the

of keeping him, pellding the trial.

and

at

the same

time,

to keep

the

accused
the

constmctivelv whether
to

in the custody
before or

of

Court,

after

conviction. attendance
presence

assure that he will submit

to the jurisdiction of the Court and be in
thereon whenever This COurt
I

his

is required.

in

Gurcharan
1978 SC

Singh and Ors. Vs. Slate, AJR
179, observed that
t\;VQ

paramount

considerarjons,

\vhiJc

conSidering
non-bailable

petition for grant of bail in offence. apart from the

I

..
:12:

seriousness' likelihood iustice and

of . the

offence,

are

the from the them

of the accl;lsed fleeing' his tampering Both vvith of

prosecution

witnesses.

relate to ensure of the fair

trial

of the

case. Though, this aspect is dealt by (he High Court in its impugned order, in our
view, the same 'is not convincing."
(Underlining. by me

for

supplying

emphasis). 15. investigating
02.02.201 02.04.2011. Accused A. Raja was arrested agency and

on 01.Q2.2011 by [he
before this
COUrt

produced

on

L The charge

sheet in the

case

was filed

on

Copies of documents were supplied to the accused of Section 207 eIPC
was

and compliance
were heard

complete.

to

the

sa tisfaction of the accused on 19.07.20] 1. Arg uments on charge over a period
to of about two

months

and charges

were

ordered

be

framed on

22. J 0.20]].
and rill 1600

Thereafter,
dare 42

prosecution

evidence

is being recorded more than

witnesses, recorded.

running

into

pages, have been

I may note with satisfaction and also with a tinge of

regret that a reasonably good amount of work has been done in the case in spite of stiff resistance' put up by some of the Accused at different 16.
since

stages of the case. I may note that all ather accused
in {he case ha ve is in cusrody in rhe

also been released on bail. The applicant," accused 02.02.2011. Considering the period

of detention

:13:

light of the progress of the case, 1 am of the opinion detention neither of the accused would

that further There is

not serve any purpose.

any allegation nor material

on record to suggest that if

the accused is enlarged on bail, he would flee from justice.

17.

An

apprehension

has

been

expressed

by the

prosecution that if enlarged on bail, the applicant/

accused may

influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence. However,
the case is going on for more than a year and no such incident

has been brought to my notice. Moreover, this apprehension
the prosecution restrictions can be addressed by imposing conditions on the accused. Furthermore, in nature

of and

almost entire evidence and the same is in the

in the case is documentary

custody of the Court.
18. period accused further 1n the end, considering of custody of the accused the progress of the trial,
;111

and the' fact that

other

have been released. on bail, J am of the opinion !hm detention

of the accused would not serve anv oumose
J. •

and for these reasons, I am inclined to admit the app!icnnl/ accused to bail and he is accordingly,
furnishing personal bond

in

admitted

ro bail on his

the sum of Rs. 20 lacs with two

sureties in the like amount; subject to following conditions:(a) make The apphcam/

accused shall not directly or indirectly
rhrear
or promise
to

any inducement,

anv

person

acquainted with the facts of the case

so

as to dissuade him 10

disclose such facts as may be necessary
other authority; (b) He shall not visit Department

ro the Coun or

to any

of 'Ielecommunicar

ions cmd

I
(c) he shall take prior permission

:14:

state of Tamil Nadu without prior permission of this Court; He shall remain present before this Court on all the dates of this Court and in case of fixed for hearing of the case. If he wants to remain absent, then

unavoidable

circumstances,

he
to

shall

immediately

give
eBJ,

intimation to this Court and also

the Superintendent,

and seek permission of this Court that he may be permitted to present through his Counsel, and in such an event, he will no!
dispute his identity as the accused in the case;
(d) He shall surrender his passport, if any (if not already

surrendered),

and in case, he is, not a holder of the same, he

shall swear an affidavit; and (e)

em

will be at liberty to make an ..:lpproprime

application

for modification/ for any reason,

recalling of the order passed by this Court, if the petitioner violates any of the conditions which is not

imposed by this Court or cr,emes any condition conducive to the holding of a fair trial.

19.

Appltcaton stands disposed of.

Announced in open Court, today on May 15, 20]2.
Spl, Judge/

em (04)

(0. P. SAINI)
(2G

Spectrum Cnses)/ND