SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- M.B. Shah and Y.K. Sabharwal, JJ.

Petn.(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) Nos. 1828, 1829 with 1868 of 2001. D/d. 12.5.2001.

Srichand P. Hinduja - Petitioner

Versus

State Through C.B.I., New Delhi - Respondent

For the Petitioner :- Kapil Sibal and P.P. Rao, Senior Advocates, U.A. Rana, C.M. Mehta, Arvind Kumar, Amit Desai, Zal Andhyarujina, Arvind Nigam, Advocates for M/s. Gagrat and Co., Advocate.

For the Respondent :- N. Natarajan, Senior Advocate, . P. Parmeswaran and A. Mariarputham, Advocates.

Criminal Procedure Code, Section 438 - Bail allowed to Hinduja brothers in offence under Section, 420 Indian Penal Code and 5(2) of Prevention Act - Two of them permitted to go abroad - No matter they acquired foreign nationality - They were Indian Nationals prior to few years; apart from various industrial activities they are also involved in other social and charitable activities; they were throughout co-operating with Investigation Agency.

[Paras 6, 7 and 8]

ORDER

M.B. Shah, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Leave granted.

3. In a criminal case known as Bofors case three Hinduja brothers are charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 120B and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 5(2) read with 5(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 as per the affidavit filed today before this Court by the Central Bureau of Investigation. The Special Judge, as well as the High Court has passed the orders releasing the appellants on bail. However, a condition, not to go abroad, has been imposed. For this purpose it was pointed out to the High Court that if the accused are permitted to go abroad, it would affect the smooth progress of the trial and there are reasonable grounds to believe that they would not return back to India to face the trial. It is also pointed out that the appellants were Indian Nationals at the time of registration of the FIR and thereafter they have acquired British and Swiss Nationalities.

4. As against this the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there is no question of not returning to this country as the appellants are having large stake and as such they were Indian Nationals prior to few years. It is their submission that apart from various industrial activities they are also involved in other social activities including charitable activities. It is pointed out that the appellants all throughout were co-operating with the investigating agency i.e. since 1990 and they have on their own remained present before the trial Court.

5. Learned counsel further submits that in any set of circumstances, at present two of the appellants may be permitted to leave abroad and stringent conditions may be imposed by this Court. He also submitted that one of the appellants, namely, Mr. Prakash P. Hinduja, who has filed Criminal Appeal No.... of 2001 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 1868 of 2001 would remain in this country till further orders.

6. On behalf of the C.B.I. in the affidavit it has been pointed that at the time of trial, in all 91 witnesses are likely to be examined. Out of them about 80 are Indian nationals and 11 are foreign nationals. It is also submitted that investigating agency would fully co-operate the trial Court in day-to-day examination of the witnesses and in completing the trial as directed by the High Court, i.e. within six months.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances, for the time being as an interim measure, the appellants, namely, Mr. Srichand P. Hinduja (in Crl. Appeal No ...... of 2001 @ SLP (Crl) 1828/2001) and Mr. Gopichand P. Hinduja (in Crl. Appeal No ..... of 2001 @ SLP (Crl) No. 1829 of 2001) are permitted to go abroad on the following conditions :

1. Both the appellants would execute a bond for a sum of Rs. 15 crores (rupees fifteen crores) each with a bank guarantee for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Special Judge.

2. On their behalf counsel will remain present on the date of posting of the matter and would not ask for adjournment on the ground that the appellants are not present in India.

3. The appellants will remain present before the Special Judge as and when their presence is needed in the case.

4. If there Is any violation of the aforesaid conditions, it would be open to the Special Judge to pass appropriate orders for cancellation of bail of the appellants.

8. In any case, this order would not adversely affect further proceedings in the trial Court and the Court will deal with the matter without being influenced in any way by this order or any observations made in the order passed by the High Court.

9. This interim measure is upto 20th August, 2001 and the matter be listed before this Court on 7th August, 2001 for further hearing and directions.

Order accordingly.