With the Delhi High Court throwing a spanner over the silence of the Supreme Court order on the criminal breach of trust charge against the five corporate executives granted bail two days ago,the hope for an early bail for DMK MP Kanimozhi and five other co-accused in the 2G spectrum allocation scam hit a roadblock on Friday. Adjourning the hearing on their bail for Monday,Justice V K Shali sought a categorical clarification on the reading of the apex court order wherein the judgment cited charges like cheating,forgery and abetment but did not mention Section 409 (criminal breach of trust),which has also been framed against all the accused in the case. Perusing the bail order,the judge also noted that the Supreme Court had mentioned that the five accused before it were substantively charged with offences which prescribe a punishment of a maximum of only seven years,if found guilty. But that is not the case. Section 409 and Section 120B (criminal conspiracy),when read together,carries the maximum punishment of life imprisonment. Criminal breach of trust is also a substantive charge. However,Section 409 does not find mention in the Supreme Court order. Either the court was not made aware of this charge or if we take this is a substantive charge,the maximum punishment is life term and not seven years,as was noted by the Supreme Court, observed Justice Shali. Observing that the bail order was silent on this aspect,the judge said the interpretation was easier had the apex court said that though the maximum punishment entailing the charges was life term,it was still granting bail to them. At this,counsel for one of the accused contended that since the apex court had passed this order after the penal charges,including the one under Section 409,was framed,it could not be said that the court was not aware of it. Additional Solicitor General Mohan Parasaran,appearing for the CBI,also failed to satisfy the court on this aspect and said that the Supreme Court order was in absolute terms and irrespective of the individual charges,it laid down general rule on bail. He added that after the apex court order,the CBI would not want to oppose the bail of any of the six accused. I am not imputing ignorance on the Supreme Court when it passed the order. The day the bail order was passed,charges were crystallised in the trial court and it cannot be said that this fact was not known to the Supreme Court. But how do we assume that trial judge would award maximum seven years sentence and not life term under section 409?, asked the court. It also raised a question whether the bail order was passed on an assumption that irrespective of the individual charges framed against the accused,the maximum punishment was up to seven years. Justice Shali further refused to read between the lines and assume that the apex court must have considered charge under Section 409 when the bail order was passed. The observations of the Supreme Court are general propositions of the law,along with some facts of the case. However,how do we interpret the order and read into the paragraphs to arrive at conclusions, he added. Discontent with the arguments raised by the counsel for the accused,the judge then asked them to return to court on Monday with relevant case laws and other illustrations that could answer his query. Earlier,the court heard extensive arguments on bail for Kanimozhi,former Telecom Secretary Siddharth Behura,filmmaker Karim Morani,DMK-run Kalaignar TV MD Sharad Kumar and private firm Kusegaon Fruits and Vegetables Pvt Ltd director Rajeev Agarwal and Asif Balwa of DB Realty. The counsel primarily relied on the apex court order granting bail to five Reliance ADAG executives and claimed the relief on the ground of parity. Balwa,Chandolia move fresh bail pleas Two accused in the 2G spectrum case Swan Telecom managing director Shahid Balwa and former telecom minister A Rajas former private secretary R K Chandolia have moved fresh bail pleas before the special CBI court,arguing for bail on grounds of parity as five co-accused have been granted bail by the SC. Dont use phones in court The special CBI judge hearing the 2G spectrum case on Friday asked the relatives of the accused not to bring and use mobile phones inside the courtroom,and said that failure to do so would result in confiscation of handsets. Judge O P Sainis order came after he noticed the wife of one of the accused using her mobile phone to click pictures inside the court.
