Court says bail granted by Special Judge was not mechanical, and prior PMLA bail order could be considered as a relevant circumstance in the connected CBI case
The Delhi High Court has dismissed the Central Bureau of Investigation’s challenge to the regular bail granted to former IPS officer Sanjay Pandey and former NSE Managing Director Chitra Ramakrishna in the National Stock Exchange call-recording case.
Justice Madhu Jain held that the Special Judge’s orders dated 21 December 2022 did not suffer from perversity, illegality, or non-application of mind. The Court emphasized that a challenge to the grant of bail is legally different from an application for cancellation of bail, and that a superior court cannot reappraise evidence in detail or substitute its own view merely because another view is possible.
The case stems from allegations that iSEC Services Pvt. Ltd. was engaged by NSE under the guise of a “Periodic Study of Cyber Vulnerabilities,” but in reality was used to unlawfully intercept, record, and examine telephone calls of NSE employees between 2009 and 2017. According to the CBI, Sanjay Pandey, who had founded iSEC, continued to influence its functioning even after formally resigning as director, while Chitra Ramakrishna, in her capacity as a senior NSE official, approved and processed the work orders and related arrangements.
The CBI argued that the Special Judge wrongly relied on a previous Delhi High Court bail order passed in the connected PMLA proceedings in favour of Sanjay Pandey, and failed to independently assess the CBI’s material. It contended that the ED and CBI proceedings were distinct and that the CBI had not been heard in the PMLA bail matter.
Rejecting these submissions, the High Court observed that while the ED and CBI cases are distinct, they arose from the same FIR and the same alleged NSE-iSEC arrangement. The Court said the earlier PMLA bail judgment was not binding, but it was a relevant circumstance that the Special Judge was entitled to consider. The Court further noted that the Special Judge had expressly recorded the CBI’s objections, considered the common factual foundation, and applied her mind to the allegations against each accused.
For Sanjay Pandey, the Court found that the bail order had taken note of the CBI’s contention that it was not a party to the ED proceedings and that the CBI’s report had been filed in a quashing petition. The Special Judge also considered the nature of the alleged predicate offences, the rigour of Section 45 of the PMLA, and the fact that the remaining offences were bailable.
For Chitra Ramakrishna, the Court noted that the Special Judge specifically addressed the CBI’s submission that her role was different from Pandey’s. The order also referred to allegations that she had approved or processed the work orders while serving in senior positions at NSE. The High Court held that her bail was not granted merely on parity, but after considering the allegations and the common legal foundation of the case.
The High Court also rejected the CBI’s argument that the charge-sheet filed one day after the bail orders should affect the legality of the decision. It ruled that the validity of the bail orders must be tested on the material available before the Special Judge on the date of the orders, and that later developments cannot retrospectively make the orders perverse.
Finding no ground for interference, the High Court dismissed both petitions and directed the trial court to proceed independently, without being influenced by the prima facie observations made in the bail orders, the earlier PMLA judgment, or the High Court’s present decision.
Bottom Line :
Bail - Challenge to order granting regular bail is distinct from cancellation of bail - Bail granted by Special Judge in CBI case arising from same FIR as ED/PMLA proceedings cannot be set aside merely because Special Judge considered earlier PMLA bail order as relevant circumstance - If objections of CBI were considered and no perversity, illegality, non-application of mind or omission of material circumstances is shown, interference is unwarranted.
Statutory provision(s): Section 482 CrPC, Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Section 437 CrPC, Section 439 CrPC, Section 120B IPC, Section 409 IPC, Section 420 IPC, Section 201 IPC, Section 69B Information Technology Act, 2000, Section 72 Information Technology Act, 2000, Section 72A Information Technology Act, 2000, Sections 20, 21, 24, 25, 26 Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, Sections 3, 6 Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933, Section 13(1)(d) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 45 Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002
Central Bureau of Investigation v. Sanjay Pandey, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc id # 2985312
