Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
16. It is relevant to point out the recent order of this Court dated 26.10.2010 in Criminal Appeal No. 2068-2072 of 2010 H wherein this Court cancelled the bail granted by the High Court CBI, HYDERABAD v. SUBRAMANI GOPALAKRISHNAN & ANR [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] in respect of A1, A2, A3, A7, AB and A9. After passing such order, this Court after recording the fact that the charges have been framed on 25.10.2010 and trial is scheduled to commence w.e.f. 02.11.2010 issued several directions, namely, (i) the trial Court to take up the case on day-to-day ·basis and conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible in any event on or before 31.07.2011; (ii) the trial Court would avoid granting undue adjournments, unless it becomes absolutely imperative; (iii) the parties are directed to examine only material and most essential witnesses and fully cooperate with the trial Court; (iv) the accused shall be produced before the trial Court · on time, on every date of hearing, unless exempted by orders of the Court; (v) the trial Court is free to decide the case without being influenced by any of the observations made by the High Court or by this Court; (vi) for any reason, trial is not concluded before 31.07.2011, the accused would be at liberty to approach the trial Court for grant of bail.
17. The recent order dated 26.10.2010 of this Court referred to above makes it clear that this Court cancelled the bail in respect of prime accused, namely, A1, A2, A3, A7, AS and A9. It is also brought to our notice that in view of the specific directions of this Court in the said order, the trial has started and according to the learned ASG, it is likely to be concluded by the cut off date, i.e. 31.07.2011. It is also brought to our notice that out of 697 witnesses, the prosecution has dropped 470 witnesses and only 227 witnesses are to be examined. Out of this, 193 witnesses have already been examined and some H [2011] S S.C.R. A of them are to be cross-examined. According to the him, only 30 more witnesses have to be produced and examined.
18. In view of the directions of this Court in the subsequent order dated 26.10.201.0, the trial is proceeding on day-to-day B basis and likely to be concluded by 31.07.2011. We are satisfied that the reasons stated while granting bail for Talluri Srinivas (AS) by this Court on 04.02.2010 are not applicable to the respondents herein. Accordingly reliance on the basis of the bail order granted in favour of AS cannot be applied to C these respondents.
19. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel, appearing for A4 and Mr. D. Rama Krishna Reddy, learned counsel appearing for A 10 strongly commented the conduct of the CBI in not challenging the order of the High Court granting bail to D these persons and failure on their part to place these matters before the Court at the appropriate time. It is not in dispute that the High Court granted bail to these respondents on 2S.06.2010 and the CBI challenging the said order filed two special leave petitions before this Court on 06.10.2010. No doubt, the matter E was listed before the Court only on 01.04.2011 on which date, this Court issued notice to the respondents and on the same day the notice was accepted by the respective counsel for the respondents and they were permitted to file their reply. After filing reply, when the matter again came up for hearing on F 04.04.2011 at the request of both sides, the matter was posted for final hearing on 1 S.04.2011 and was argued at length on the same day. Though the appellant-CBI was not so diligent to bring the special leave petitions for orders immediately after filing of the same due to various reasons and compliance of G the office report had taken some time, however, on this ground their challenge with regard to the order of the High Court granting bail cannot be rejected without going into the merits.
20. Though Mr. D. Rama K~ishna Reddy, learned counsel for A-10, submitted that he being the internal auditor, employee CBI, HYDERABAD v. SUBRAMANI GOPALAKRISHNAN & ANR. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] of Mis SCSL, there is no statutory function and his name does not find place. in the first charge-sheet and he was named only in the second charge-sheet, considering the materials available, it is not desirable to go into the correctness or otherwise at this juncture and at the same time in view of the magnitude of the scam and without the assistance and connivance of persons in-charge of auditing, we are unable to accept the stand of the learned counsel and hold that the High Court is not justified in granting bail for him.
21. It is also relevant to note that there .is difference between yardsticks for cancellation of bail and appeal against C the order granting bail. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of bail already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail are, interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concessions granted to the accused in any manner. These are all only few illustrative materials. The satisfaction of the Court on the basis of the materials placed on record of the possibility of the accused absconding is another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. In other words, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a· mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial. We have already pointed out that the issue before us is not for cancellation of bail granted earlier, the question is whether in the facts and circumstances of the magnitude of the scam, the bail granted in favour of all the main accused have been cancelled and the Respondent Nos. A4 and A10 being external and internal auditors respectively, their role being paramount in inflating processing assets and bank balances of M/s SCSL, we are of the view that the High Court is not justified in granting bail. [2011) 5 S.C.R.
22. In view of the specific allegation by the prosecution that A4 and A 10 were party to the criminal conspiracy showing inflated (non-existent) cash and bank balances reflected in the books, inflated proceeds over a period of last several years , frauds and cooking books of accounts, we are satisfied that B the High Court ought not to have granted bail to these respondents. Considering the subsequent order of this Court dated 26.10.2010 cancelling the bail in respect of other accused and issuing directions based on which the trial has to be concluded within the schedule time, viz. 31.07.2011, we hold c that the High Court committed an error in granting bail to these respondents A4 and A 1 O.
23. In the light of the above discussion, the impugned order of the High Court dated 25.06.2010 in Crl. Petition Nos. 4913 and 4972 of 2010 granting bail in favour of the respondents i.e., D A4 and A 10 is set aside. They are directed to surrender on or before 30.04.2011 otherwise the appellant shall take appropriate steps in accordance with law. All the observations and directions, as stated in the earlier order dated 26.10.2010, ·are also applicable to the respondents (A4 and A10). We also E make it clear that the above said conclusion is for considering the grant of bail by the High Court and the trial Court is free to decide the case without being influenced by any of the observations made by the High court and by this Court in this order.
24. The appeals are allowed. N.J. Appeals allowed.