Sukash @ Sukesh Chandrashekar v. State

1. By this petition the petitioner seeks bail in case FIR No.56/2017 under Sections 467/468/471/474/170/201/120B IPC and Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 registered at PS Crime Branch.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been in custody now for more than two years and thus bail be granted to him. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 11th December, 2018 it is contended that despite the fact that the learned Trial Court was directed to consider the application for bail on its own merit without being influenced by any of the observations made by the High Court 2019:DHC:3002 in the order dated October 10, 2018 the learned Trial Court dismissed the bail application of the petitioner vide the order dated 20th February, 2019. Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in Crl. Appeal No.605/2019 titled Zahur Haider Zaidi Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation it is stated that the bail cannot be denied on the ground of conduct of the party for the reason in case the conduct of the accused after release on bail is of intimidating and winning over the witnesses, the prosecution can always approach the competent court for cancellation of the bail. In any case the conduct of the petitioner in jail is highly commendable and he has received number of appreciation letters. Though charge-sheet was filed for offences punishable under Sections 467/468/471/474/201/170 and 120B IPC and Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act however no charge for offence punishable 467 IPC has been framed and charges have been framed only for offences punishable under Section 170/201/419/420/468/471/474 IPC read with Section 120B IPC and Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Though 24 cases are used against the petitioner however in four of the cases, the petitioner has been acquitted and in 16 other cases he is on bail. There is no allegation that the petitioner has misused the concession of bail in those cases. The maximum sentence that can be imposed on the petitioner being seven years imprisonment out of which he has undergone imprisonment for two years he be granted bail and in case he violates the conditions of bail, the investigating agency can always seek cancellation thereof.

3. Learned APP for the State on the other hand contends that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature even after being involved in FIR No.56/2017 wherein he seeks bail he has impersonated himself as the Secretary to Hon’ble Union Law Minister seeking favour as also made a phone call to the learned Special Judge, PC Act impersonating as Hon’ble Judge of the Supreme Court. He bribed and managed the police escort staff when taken for production to Bengaluru, Coimbatore and Mumbai. An affidavit of the Superintendent, Jail No.7 has also been filed thereby noting that he has been awarded jail punishment. It has also been revealed that in the month of April, 2019 jail staff was found extending undue favour to a visitor of the petitioner and departmental action has been initiated against Head Warder Narender though no punishment on this count has been recorded against the petitioner.

4. The abovementioned FIR was registered pursuant to a secret information that was received on 15th April, 2017 at 11:30 P.M. regarding one person namely Sukash @ Sukesh Chandershekar, a resident of Bengaluru, who had checked in to Hotel Hyatt Regency, Delhi along with his associate and was staying in room number 263. Sukash was in constant touch with TTV Dinakaran, AIADMK Deputy General Secretary regarding the matter pending before the Election Commission of India with respect to the dispute of the party symbol. The matter was likely to come up on 17th April 2017 when Sukash had promised to use his influence with the Election Commission of India and the Union Law Minister to get the matter resolved in favour of the Sasikala faction for which TTV Dinakaran promised to pay him ₹50 crores. TTV Dinakaran had arranged for ₹2 crores to be sent from Chennai to Delhi to be payed as bribe to the staff of Election Commission of India. Sukesh received the amount in two equal installments of ₹1 crore each from Naresh @ Nathu Singh and Lalit Kumar @ Babu Bhai. On the basis of the secret information, a raiding party was constituted and a raid was conducted at the hotel room of the petitioner from where a sum of ₹1.30 crores in the denomination of ₹2000 currency notes and a compact disk containing the conversation of the deal between Sukash and TTV Dinakaran were recovered.

5. During the course of investigation, identity card of the Member of Parliament (Rajya Sabha) and one Indian Youth Congress Identity Card bearing the name and photo of Sukesh were recovered which were later on found to be fake. One Mercedes car affixed with the sticker of Member of Parliament was also recovered which sticker was also found to be forged.

6. During the course of investigation, the petitioner was also found to be involved in 24 other cases. FIR No.33/2015 and FIR No.177/2016 have been registered against the petitioner in Mumbai. In FIR No.177/2016 the petitioner is alleged to have contacted the learned Additional District Judge, Mumbai and impersonated himself as the Secretary to the Union Law Minister asking for a favour in a case. During his custody in the present case three fresh FIRs have been registered against him. In FIR No.100/2017 petitioner has been accused of using the phone of a Constable for influencing the learned Spl. POC Judge to grant him bail impersonating himself as a Hon’ble Judge of the Supreme Court while in FIR No.166/2017 he has been accused of impersonating himself as the Private Secretary to the Minister of Law and Justice. Another FIR bearing No.186/2017 was registered alleging that the petitioner bribed and managed the Police Escorting Staff while he was taken to Bangalore, Coimbatore and Mumbai for production before various courts.

7. As noted above, the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature however besides the allegations as noted in FIR against the petitioner, during the custody in the above noted FIR three more FIRs have already been registered against the petitioner as noted above. In Zahur Haider Zaidi’s case (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, CBI expressed its apprehension only to the effect that the appellant therein was a highly placed police officer and thus may intimidate, win over and influence the witnesses. In the present case the petitioner is habitual of influencing the course of justice as he impersonated himself as Hon’ble Judge of Supreme Court and made a phone call trying to influence the learned Special Judge, PC Act. To gain undue favours petitioner has been impersonating as Private Secretary to the Hon’ble Minister of Law and Justice, Union of India. Thus, the case of the petitioner stands on a different footing. It is not merely a case of apprehension of interference or influencing but a case where the petitioner is influencing every stake holder in the process of trial.

8. The three major considerations at the time of grant of bail are seriousness of the allegations, likelihood of the accused absconding and likelihood of the accused tampering with the evidence and influencing the witnesses. One of the major considerations for grant of bail being whether the accused will not influence the witnesses and the course of justice, stands already violated by the petitioner and is not a mere apprehension of the prosecution. Further, despite the fact that no charge under Section 467 IPC has been framed, the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature as there has been recovery for a sum of Rs.1.30 crores from his hotel room. The forged identity card of Member of Parliament, Rajya Sabha and a forged sticker of Member of Parliament affixed on the Mercedes car clearly gave entry to the petitioner at all sensitive areas thereby compromising with the security.

9. Though learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has received appreciation letters in jail however, as noted above, petitioner has also tried to influence the officers of jail for giving him favours.

10. Considering the facts noted above, this Court finds no ground to grant bail to the petitioner.

11. Petition is dismissed.

JUDGE MAY 31, 2019 ‘vj/rk’