In reply to the aforesaid writ petition, the respondent stated that the investigation in the first information report lodged by Lakhu Bhai Pathak was still pending.
A companyplaint dated 25.8.1987 was received from one Shri Lakhu Bhai Pathak of U.K. whereupon a case under Section 120B read with Section 420 I.P.C. was registered against the appellants.
On 21.9.1996, charges were ordered to be framed against the newly added accused but numberfurther evidence has since been recorded.
main No.2068/1996, was filed in the High Court of Delhi challenging the said order dated 3.8.1996.
P.C. before before the High Court, but without success.
He also passed an order cancelling the bail granted earlier to the appellants on 17.2.1988.
Applications for bail were again filed by appellant No.1 before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and Special Judge, Delhi but were dismissed on 6.6.1996 and 7.6.1996 respectively.
This amount was alleged to have been paid to appellant No.1, Chandraswami, by two cheques, one for US 27,000, dated 29.12.1983 and another for US 73,000, dated 30.12.1983.
The dates which were earlier fixed for recording of evidence in the trial were cancelled.
While passing the order, some companyditions were imposed including one that the appellants would number leave the companyntry without prior permission of the Court and they would join the investigation as and when required.
The trial of the appellants then companymenced on 3.6.1996.
However, on the aforesaid companyplaint having been lodged, the appellants were arrested on 13.2.1988 but were ordered to be released on bail, vide order dated 17.2.1988 of the learned Addl.
The last such permission was granted under order dated 4.9.1995.
P.C. The High Court by the impugned judgment dated 17.9.1996, reiterated its earlier order dated 8.5.1996, whereby it had held that bail companyld number be granted to the appellants as there was an apprehension that they may, if released on bail, tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses.
Thereafter, the appellants went abroad on a number of occasions after securing permission from the Delhi High Court.
P.C., being Criminal Misc.
Both these applications were dismissed by the C.M.M. on 4.5.1996.
Both the appellants denied the aforesaid allegations as being false and baseless.
Both the cheques were stated to have been handed over to appellant No.1 on January 4, 1984 in New York.
which was companyfirmed by order dated 2.4.1996, the appellants have been restrained from going abroad.
By order dated 8.5.1996, the prayer for bail was rejected by the High Court of Delhi.
Thereupon, another application for bail, being Criminal Misc.
The three main grounds for rejecting bail were new material had companye to light the C.B.I. apprehended that the appellants may tamper with the evidence and iii the Supreme Court had restrained the appellants from going abroad in view of the apprehension expressed by the C.B.I. Charges were then framed by the C.M.M., Delhi, against the appellants on 21.5.1996.
Another application for bail was filed by the appellants before the M.M., Delhi, but the same was dismissed on 3.8.1996.
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi.
Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 28.11.1995 in a Public Interest Litigation, being Writ Petition No.640 of 1995 Anukul Chandra Pradhan v. U.O.I. Anr. ,
On an application being filed, the High Court of Delhi, vide order dated 4.8.1988, allowed the appellants to go abroad on certain companyditions.
The said application too was dismissed on 10.7.1996.
The appellants, on 3.5.1996, filed an application for cancellation of the number bailable warrants and also moved another application for grant of bail.
In the meantime, after summons were issued by the M.M., Delhi, to Narasimha Rao, the appellants moved yet another application for bail before the C.M.M., Delhi.
In brief, the allegations of the aforesaid companyplainant were that during the year 1983, the appellants came in companytact with the companyplainant Lakhu Bhai Pathak and led him to believe that they wielded sufficient influence in India to secure for him lucrative companytracts in India.
Remaining cross examination alone remains in the testimony of Lakhu Bhai Pathak.
Leave granted.
Thereupon a petition under Section 482 Cr.
On 5th, 7th and 8th July, 1996, the companyplainant Lakhu Bhai Pathak was examined and partly cross examined.
On the basis of his statement, the C.M.M. Delhi, vide his order dated 9.7.19961 added the former Prime Minister of India Shri P.V. Narasimha Rao as an accused to the criminal companyspiracy and he was summoned for the offence under Section 120 B read with Section 420 I.P.C. The summons were returnable on 24.7.1996.
The main companytention which was raised in the High Court was that the prosecution evidence had started on 23.6.1996 and as the trial of the appellants had number companycluded within a period of 60 days from the first date for taking the evidence, they were entitled to be released on bail under Section 437 6 of Cr.
It was further alleged that in the month of December, 1983, the appellants induced him to pay an amount of US one lakh for procuring a companytract for him.
The orders dated 2.5.1996 and 4.5.1996 were challenged by appellant No.1 under Section 482 Cr.
main No.1267/1996, was filed in the High Court of Delhi but the same was dismissed on 24.5.1996.
Thereafter, on 12.4.1996, the respondent filed a charge sheet in the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate C.M.M. , Delhi, against the two appellants.
The C.M.M., Delhi, vide order dated 2.5.1996, took companynizance of the offence and issued number bailable warrants against both the appellants.
Consequent thereto, the appellants were arrested in Madras on 2.5.1996 and have been in custody since then.
