Final Order 2

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Bail Matter No. 149/2023
State vs. Subhash Chander
FIR No. 08/2022
PS: ACB
U/s 7 of PC Act r/w 420/120B of IPC
23.08.2023
ORDER :
1) By way of present order, I shall dispose of an
application for grant of bail U/s 439 Cr.P.C. as filed on
behalf of above named applicant/accused.
2) Arguments have been advanced by Sh. Vikram
Singh, Sh. Gandharv Anand and Sh. Ghanisth Bagaria, Ld.
Counsels for the applicant and by Sh. Kumar Sanjay, Ld.
Addl. PP for State assisted by Sh. Sushil Kumar Jha, Ld.
Counsel for complainant. IO ACP Jarnail Singh has filed
reply. Copy supplied.
3) Ld. Counsel for applicant argued that the applicant is
aged about 75 years and is in J/C since 30.06.2023. It is
submitted that the applicant joined the investigation on at
least five occasions after receiving notices U/s 160 Cr.P.C.
but he was arrested without any justified grounds and there
is clear violation of directions issued by Hon’ble Apex
Court in case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs CBI.
4) Ld. Counsel for applicant vehemently contended that
as per allegations applicant has been implicated for his
alleged involvement in only one transfer of TSR and both
transferrer and transferee agreed for same and there is no
collateral damage. It is further submitted that the transfer
Page 1 of 7
-- 1 of 7 --
was not done at an exorbitant price. Ld. Counsels for the
applicant further argued that applicant himself facilitated
the IO to get in touch with Mohd. Ameen, the original
permit holder whose permit is allegedly got transferred by
applicant on the basis of documents bearing his forged
signatures. It is submitted that all the original documents
have already been submitted to IO by the applicant and
nothing is to be recovered. Ld. Counsels for the applicant
further argued that triple test for grant of bail goes in
favour of applicant as there is no risk of tampering of
evidence, influencing the witnesses or absconding. My
attention is drawn towards order in Bail Appl. No.
3214/2019, Crime No. 275/2019 of Tirur Police Station,
Malapuram titled Eni Vs State of Kerala.
5) Per contra, bail application is opposed by Ld. Addl.
PP for the State while arguing that IO has complied with
the directions issued by Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Satender Kumar Antil case and applicant’s judicial remand
was granted by the concerned court only after being
satisfied regarding ground of arrest of accused. It is
submitted that case relates to a deep criminal nexus
involving the officials of Transport Authority of Burari and
the dealers/financiers of auto-rickshaws for procuring
transfer of permits of auto-rickshaws in fraudulent manner.
It is submitted that on account of illegal transfer of permits
on the basis of forged documents, the accused persons
have caused huge loss of revenue to the Government and
such type of economic offence should be dealt strictly. Ld.
Page 2 of 7
-- 2 of 7 --
Addl. PP for State further argued that as per investigation
conducted so far out of 65 cases of transfer of permits, 28
cases are of those permit holders who have already expired
and four persons are not traceable. It is submitted that
investigation is at initial stage and possibility to tamper
with the evidence cannot be ruled out as the issue of
transfer of permit of other TSRs which were transferred
illegally is in progress. Ld. Addl. PP for State further
argued that age is not the sole criteria for grant of bail. My
attention if drawn to an authority reported as Pritam Singh
Bhati Vs State, Bail App. No. 1990/2015, Hon’ble Delhi
High Court.
6) Facts in brief are that present case FIR was
registered pursuant to directions of Hon’ble Delhi High
Court in W.P.(Crl.) 1112/2022 dated 12.05.2022 whereby,
Hon’ble Delhi High Court directed to conduct
investigation with regard to allegations of corruption
treating the petition as a complaint. The petitioners no. 1
and 3 are societies working as NGOs and petitioner no. 2
is a Trade Union and other petitioners are victim TSR auto
drivers/sufferers who have preferred the aforesaid
Criminal Writ Petition to expose the illegal and corrupt
practices of unlawful TSR auto financiers/unauthorized
dealers, touts/agents and DTO/MLO working at Burari
Transport Authority who are exploiting poor auto rickshaw
drivers.
7) It is stated that there is a cap on TSR permits in
Delhi and only 1,000,00 TSR auto permits are allowed and
Page 3 of 7
-- 3 of 7 --
out of the same around 70% auto permits are traded
illegally by the unauthorized dealers/proprietorship
firms/unlawful financiers. Presently on-road price of a
new TSR is around Rs.2,46,000/- but the same vehicle is
sold in the market at around Rs.6,30,000/- due to huge
black marketing of TSR auto permits. The DTO/MLO in
connivance with unlawful financiers completely stopped
the execution of the terms of order dated 15.04.2015 of the
Transport Department and the order/judgment dated
16.12.1997 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.C.
Mehta Vs Union of India and without verifying the cause
of dispute, they locks the records of TSR autos in auto-
rickshaw units without verifying the cause of dispute at the
request of third party/stranger/unlawful financiers. Such
proprietorship firms/unlawful financiers apart from bribing
and managing Burari Transport officials also misuses the
authority of the court by procuring 4700 ex-parte interim
court orders U/s 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act
without impleading registered owner/permit holder as a
necessary/proper party. The practice of bribing at Burari
Transport Authorities is at peak and no driver can get his
work done without the assistance of tout/agent and without
paying bribe and there are around 30-40 touts/agents
working at Burari Transport Authority and all are having
separate codes and are paying bribes to DTO/MLO.
8) It is stated that by misusing the faceless scheme
which came into force due to COVID-19 pandemic, the
DTO/MLO in collusion with unlawful financiers have
Page 4 of 7
-- 4 of 7 --
illegally renewed or transferred TSR auto permits of
several expired permit holders without following due
process of law. There is huge revenue losses to
Government by transferring the auto permits of expired
permit holders without following the due process of law as
the penalty of expired permit holders are not deposited and
straightway vehicles are transferred. It is stated that one
Sh. Anil Sethi encashed the opportunity of COVID-19
pandemic and filed a writ petition no. 8181/2020 before
the Hon’ble High Court through his employee Sh.
Sukhvinder Singh by using the name of a union “Delhi
Auto Rickshaw Sangh” and after getting favourable order
under faceless scheme got several vehicles transferred
illegally and also got renewed permits of several vehicles
by manipulating the transport officials. The said Sh. Anil
Sethi by manipulating, concealing and forging the
documents has procured more than 2700 court orders out
of around 4700 total court orders given to proprietorship
firms in Delhi in TSR auto sector. It is stated that the
enquiry conducted so far prima facie established
commission of offence U/s 7 of PC Act r/w 420/120B IPC.
9) In Nimmagadda Prasad vs Central Bureau of
Investigation, 2013 V AD (SC) 549, the Hon’ble Apex
court observed as under :
“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
character of the accused, circumstances which
Page 5 of 7
-- 5 of 7 --
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 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 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.”
10) As per reply of IO, admittedly till today applicant is
found indulged in transfer of permit of only one TSR
bearing registration no. DL-1RM-7688. It is also reported
that co-accused Rishu who was working as tout had forged
signatures of both the permit holders of present case.
Perusal of case diary also shows that Mohd. Ameen was
the permit holder of aforesaid TSR who got financed the
TSR from the applicant and as he could not repay the
installments, he returned the said TSR to applicant in the
year 2014. Later on, as per case of prosecution, applicant
got transferred the permit of aforesaid TSR in favour of
one Sh. Sanjay Passi and both the transferrer i.e. Mohd.
Ameen and transferee of the permit i.e. Sh. Sanjay Passi
were not known to each other and applicant got transferred
the permit of the aforesaid TSR through tout co-accused
Rishu who forged the signatures of both the aforesaid
persons on the documents and later on in connivance with
Page 6 of 7
-- 6 of 7 --
transport officials got transferred the permit in favour of
Sh. Sanjay Passi without following the requisite procedure.
It is also not the case of prosecution that applicant abetted
any public servant i.e. officials of Transport Authority to
illegally transfer the permit of said TSR by taking any
gratification
11) Applicant is aged about 75 years and is in custody
since 30.06.2023. Keeping in view the alleged role of
applicant, he is admitted to bail on furnishing a personal
bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety of the like
amount subject to the following conditions :-
(i) That during the period of bail, applicant/accused
shall not try to contact or influence, directly or
indirectly, any of the witnesses of present case and
shall not tamper with evidence;
(ii) That applicant/accused shall not misuse the
liberty of bail by indulging in commission of similar
offences in future;
(iii) That applicant/accused shall not leave the
country without prior permission of the Court;
(iv) That applicant/accused shall intimate the Court
in case of change of address.
12) Accordingly, bail application stands disposed off. A
copy of order be given dasti to Ld. Counsel for
applicant/accused as well as IO.
(Sanjeev Kumar Malhotra)
Link Special Judge, PC Act (ACB-01)
RADC, NewDelhi/23.08.2023
Page 7 of 7
-- 7 of 7 --