Dismissed

V.D.Rajagopal, (A3) v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC2 Aug 2012CRLP/5772/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Petition for bail filed by V.D. Rajagopal, Vice Chairman and Managing Director of APMDC, accused of corruption and mining lease irregularities. The High Court dismissed the bail petition citing the gravity of the case, potential tampering with evidence, and lack of fit circumstances for release.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition No.5772 of 2012 dismissed; bail not granted to the petitioner.

V.D.Rajagopal, (A3) Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Corruption | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

¶3

CRIMINAL PETITION No.5772 of 2012

¶4

DATE:02.08.2012

¶5

Between:

¶6

V.D.Rajagopal …… Petitioner And State – represented by Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti Corruption Branch, rep. by its Special Standing Counsel.

¶7

…..Respondent

¶8

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA

¶9

GOVINDARAJULU

¶10

CRIMINAL PETITION No.5772 of 2012

¶11

ORDER :

¶12

The petitioner/A-3 is accused of offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 409, 420, 468, 471 I.P.C and Section 13(1) (d)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner is in custody since 12.11.2011. He was given to C.B.I Custody (police custody) from 14.11.2011 to 21.11.2011 for one week for interrogation during investigation. After investigation, C.B.I filed charge sheet in this case on 03.12.2011. Special Judge for C.B.I cases, Hyderabad initially granted bail to A-3 on 15.12.2011. C.B.I filed Criminal Petition No.13303 of 2011 in this Court for cancellation of bail. Initially this Court by order dated

¶13

16.12.2011 kept bail order of the Special Judge in abeyance and after hearing both the parties, allowed Crl.P.No.13303 of 2011 by order dated 26.12.2011 cancelling bail granted by the Special Court. Subsequently on 04.01.2012 the Special Court took cognizance of the above offences against A-3 and the case was taken on file against A-1 to A-5.

¶14

2) A-3 filed bail application in this Court in Crl.P.No.3801 of 2012. The said Criminal Petition was withdrawn by the petitioner with a view to move the Special Judge for bail and consequently the said Criminal Petition was dismissed as withdrawn. Subsequent bail application of the petitioner/A-3 was dismissed by the Principal Special Judge for C.B.I cases, Hyderabad on 29.05.2012. Thereupon the petitioner moved this Court by way of this petition for bail. In this Criminal Petition, the petitioner’s counsel took me through various allegations mentioned in the charge sheet against A-3 and contended that the prosecution case does not withstand to strict scrutiny. The Court in a bail application may go through the entire prosecution material in a bird’s eye view; but at the same time is not expected to express any definite opinion on merits or demerits of the prosecution case. Suffice it to say that the petitioner was working as Vice Chairman and Managing Director of Andhra Pradesh Mineral

¶15

Development Corporation (APMDC), on 12.07.2004 when open ended notification was issued on that day in the Anantapur District Gazette Extraordinary by the then Assistant Director, Mines and Geology (ADMG), Anantapur inviting applications for re-grant of mining lease to be received after expiry of 30 days from the date of publication notifying 231 acres = 93.5 hectares in S.Nos.1 and 2 of Malapanagudi village, D.Hirehal Mandal, Anantapur District. A-3 as Vice Chairman and Managing Director of APMDC filed application for grant of mining lease in respect of 25 hectares out of 93.5 hectares. The said extent of 25 hectares out of 93.5 hectares was reserved for allotment to APMDC. Subsequently A-3 was transferred as Director of Mines and Geology, Government of Andhra Pradesh on 01.08.2004 while holding full additional charge of VC/MD of APMDC. Obulapuram Mining Company Private Limited (OMCPL)/A-4 filed application for mining lease for an area of 93.50 hectares on 28.08.2004. A-1/Bovilla Venkata Srinivasa Reddy is Managing Director and A-2/Gali Janardhan Reddy is Director of OMCPL/A4. While so, A-2’s father-in-law by name D.Parameswar Reddy floated Vinayaka Mining Company on 23.08.2004. Vinayaka Mining Company also filed application for mining lease for the same area of 93.50 hectares on 28.08.2004 itself. Subsequently 23 other applicants also filed their respective applications for

¶16

mining lease of the said area from 05.10.2004 onwards. Prior to these applications, there were 5 prospecting licence applications pending in the office of ADMG, Anantapur for various extents in the notified area for mining lease. A-5/R.Linga Reddy who is no more was working as ADMG, Anantapur during the relevant time.

¶17

3) It is the prosecution case that A-5 in the first instance and A-3 thereafter in pursuance of conspiracy to favour A-4 company took into consideration the applications of A-4 company and Vinayaka Mining Company and made comparative chart between those two companies and sent the file recommending for grant of mining lease for 68.50 hectares. According to the prosecution, the said consideration of only 2 applicants leaving aside other applicants is contrary to Section 11(4) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (in short, the Act of 1957). In contrast, the petitioner’s counsel contended that the procedure adopted by A-3 in taking into consideration the applications of A-4 company and Vinayaka Mining Company is in accordance with Section 11(2) and Section 11(4) of the Act of 1957. Section 11(2) of the said Act has no application herein. As the State Government had notified in the official gazette the area for grant of mining lease the appropriate provision under which the applications should have been considered only under

¶18

Section 11(4) of the Act 1957, which reads as follows:

¶19

“(4) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (1), where the State Government notifies in the Official Gazette an area for grant of reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining lease, as the case may be, all the applications received during the period as specified in such notification, which shall not be less than thirty days, shall be considered simultaneously as if all such applications have been received on the same day and the State Government, after taking into consideration the matters specified in sub-section (3), may grant the reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining lease, as the case may be, to such one of the applicants as it may deem fit.”

¶20

4) Apart from that, few days prior to notification, A-3’s brother-in-law by name D.Rajasekhar was nominated as Director in A-4 company on 11.07.2005. According to the prosecution, D.Rajasekhar pursued this matter through his brother-in-law A- 3. The prosecution points out various activities undertaken by D.Rajasekhar with the Department of Mining in the State Government.

¶21

5) Apart from keeping other 23 applicants for mining lease of the notified area away from consideration, it is alleged that A-3 had managed to keep 25 hectares out of the notified area reserved for APMDC, so that future steps will be taken to see that the said area is somehow or the other allotted to A-4 company for mining lease. It is stated that the said 25 hectares of mining area out of the notified area contains export grade iron ore. It is pointed out by the prosecution that the then Minister for Mines gave statement to the investigating officer to the effect that

¶22

A-6 who was the Secretary in the Government tried to exercise pressure on the minister for recommending for grant of mining lease in that area of 25 hectares also.

¶23

6) The prosecution also alleges several other official favours extended by A-3 towards A-4 company in the charge sheet in order to get monetary benefit to A-4 company.

¶24

7) It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that A-3’s brother-in-law D.Rajasekhar was taken as Director in A-4 company as he happened to be an Advocate and that it is practice in corporate sector to induct persons as director of a Company basing on their professional abilities. On the other hand, the Special Public Prosecutor contends that brother-in-law of A-3 was inducted as Director because of his qualification of being A-3’s brother-in-law. In view of various allegations pointed out in record against A-3 by the prosecution, it cannot be said that there is no triable case against A-3 in this case.

¶25

8) In Sanjay Chandra V. Central Bureau of Investigation^[1] the Supreme Court held: “Therefore, in determining whether to grant bail, both the seriousness of the charge and the severity of the punishment should be taken into consideration”. It is further recognised by the Supreme Court therein that grant or refusal to grant bail lies within the discretion

¶26

of the Court and that the grant or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. The Supreme Court considered the entire march of law on bails

¶27

right from Gurucharan Singh V. State (Delhi Admn. )^[2] and even prior to it and reiterated the grounds to be taken into consideration while granting or refusing bail. Apart from the above considerations, another ground which the Court has to examine is reasonable apprehension of tampering with or threatening the witnesses. It is pointed out by the Special Public Prosecutor that even while the petitioner/A-3 has been in judicial custody, A-3 tried to contact witnesses and exercise pressure on them not to disclose facts and details to the prosecution and contended that in case he is released on bail now, there is every likelihood of he tampering the evidence by way of contacting witnesses. On the other hand, it is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the petitioner is now no longer in service as he was retired from service after attaining age of superannuation, even while in judicial custody and that therefore there is no possibility of the petitioner influencing the witnesses using his official position. The prosecution apprehends that the petitioner though retired from service, is capable of exercising personal influence by exerting pressure tactics by several high handed methods in

¶28

collusion with other accused in this case and followers of the other accused.

¶29

9) This Court previously on 26.12.2011 cancelled bail granted by the lower Court to the petitioner/A-3. When questioned as to what is change of circumstances in the case thereafter, the petitioner’s counsel submitted that subsequently the special Court took cognizance of the offences against A-3 and the case was taken on file against A-1 to A-5 on 04.01.2012. The charge sheet was filed by C.B.I on 03.12.2011. Taking a charge sheet on file, registering the same and assigning calendar case number to it subsequent to bail cancellation order passed by this Court on a charge sheet filed prior to bail cancellation order by this Court cannot be taken as change of circumstance. Even though it is stated in the charge sheet that investigation of the case in so far as A-3 is completed, it is contended by the Special Public Prosecutor that after apprehension of Alikhan who is the personal secretary/assistant of A-2/Gali Janardhan Reddy, the said Alikhan may throw some more light on the entire case including the case against A-3 and that efforts are being made by C.B.I to secure his presence at Hyderabad from custody in Bengaluru presently. It is further pointed out that Enforcement Directorate (E.D) is making enquiry and investigation into the allegations under Money Laundering

¶30

Act against several of the accused including A-3. In view of gravity of this case, likelihood of the petitioner tampering with evidence in this case and subsequent investigation that may be taken up after Alikhan’s presence is secured in the present case, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case for granting bail to the petitioner/A-3 at this stage.

¶31

10) In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

¶32

_______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J

¶33

August, 02 2012 ksh

¶34

[1] (2012)1 Supreme Court Cases 40

¶35

[2] (1978)1 Supreme Court Cases 118

V.D.Rajagopal, (A3) v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.D.Rajagopal, (A3) v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Puli Raju, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Dasagiri Kiran Kumar Vs Dasagiri Lavanya

Koropolu Venkata Narasimha Murthy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Rizwana Begum, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Gunje Sujatha Vs Zaibunnisa Begum

Mannem Sanjeeva Reddy , Sanjeev, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh