Honchos offence could have hit economy

NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court on Monday rejected the bail applications of five 2G spectrum scam accused, including promoters and owners of two big real estate companies - Sanjay Chandra of Unitech Builders and Vivek Goenka of D B Realty - on the ground that their alleged offence was of the high est magnitude, which could have adversely impacted the country’s economy. Besides the two, bail pleas of three senior officials of Reliance ADAG - Gautam Doshi, Hari Nair and Surendra Pipara - were also rejected. “Taking into account the gravity of the accusation against the petitioners, a reasonable possibility of their interfering with the process of justice by tampering with the evidence, I do not deem it appropriate to release the petitioners on bail at this stage when investigations  into the matter is going on and the trial is yet to begin,” said Justice Ajit Bharihoke. “This is an offence of the highest magnitude, which not only impacts the society at large but also questions  the governance in the country, which can adversely affect the economy. In my view, the gravity of offence itself is sufficient to deny bail to the petitioners.” Dwelling on the difference between economic offences and those against body or property, Justice Bharihoke said, “The offences against body or property generally affect one or few victims, but the economic offences involving exploitation of public offices have a potential to impact society at large. When a loss is caused to the State exchequer, every citizen suffers because the money could have been used for development or for public welfare measures like food, health, education etc. In the instant case, the petitioners have been shown to be prima facie involved in criminal conspiracy resulting in a financial loss to the tune of around Rs 30,000 crore and corresponding gains to their companies running into thousand crores of rupees.”Criticising the CBI for not arresting the petitioners due to the influence they wield, Justice Bharihoke rejected good behaviour, cooperation during investigation and non-influencing of witnesses as grounds for bail. “At first brush, arguments of the petitioners appear to be attractive. However, one cannot ignore the history of this case. From the record, it is evident that despite having collected prima facie evidence of involvement of petitioners in deep-rooted conspiracy involving corrupt practice by public servants to cause huge wrongful gains to the favoured companies of the petitioners running into thousands crores of rupees, neither the petitioners were arrested by the CBI nor they were taken into custody and produced before the court along with the chargesheet as envisaged under Section 170 of the CrPC. This circumstance, in itself, gives an insight into the influence wielded by the petitioners during the investigations.”