Suresh Kalmadi v. Union of India & Ors

SANJIV KHANNA, J AUGUST 30, 2011 pk

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 30th August, 2011 + LPA 707/2011 SURESH KALMADI ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ashok Desai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mitesh Jain, Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, Ms. Diya Kapur, Ms.Shyel Trehan, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, ASG with Ms. Maneesha Dhir, Ms. Mithu Jain, Ms. Preeti Dalal, Mr. Bhagat Singh, Mr. Vidit Gupta, Mr. Yashwardhan Tiwari, Advocates for UOI Mr. N. Waziri, Adv. with Mr.Shoaib Haider, Adv. for GNCTD Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Mr. Gautam Narayan, Adv. for CBI CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA Whether reporters of the local papers be allowed to see the judgment? Yes To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes DIPAK MISRA, CJ In the present intra-Court appeal, the appellant has called in question the legal pregnability of the order dated 5th August, 2011 passed by the learned single Judge in WP(C) No. 5367/2011. 2. The facts which are necessitous to be exposited for the purpose of adjudication of the appeal are that the appellant, a Member of the Parliament for last seven terms covering a span of 28 years, has been booked in RC No.DAI-2010-A-0044 registered by the CBI/ACB/New Delhi on 29th November, 2010 for offences punishable under Sections 420/467/468/471 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‗IPC') and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‗the PC Act'). The appellant after being taken into custody moved an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the learned Special Judge rejected the application for bail after referring to the material brought on record. We think it appropriate to reproduce the ultimate conclusion arrived at by the learned Special Judge, CBI, ACB, New Delhi. It reads as follows: ―On the basis of the aforesaid discussion and in view of the applicant being an influential person who was exercising full control over the Organizing Committee as its Chairman and most of the witnesses are his appointees/employees of the Organizing Committee, vendors or employees of the vendors who were given contracts for various works by the applicant or other persons close to him; gravity of offence being of very serious nature for causing loss to Government of India and unlawful gain to a private vendor to the tune of more than Rs.95 Crores and the nature and character of evidence collected by CBI, I am of the view that accused is not entitled to bail at this stage and his bail application is dismissed.‖ 3. Thereafter, the appellant has not approached any superior forum for enlargement on bail. 4. When the matter stood thus, the appellant invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of a direction for permission to attend the Parliament as the President of India has summoned the Parliament to session on 14th July, 2011 and he has been issued the intimation to attend the 8th session of the 15th Lok Sabha commencing 1st August, 2011. In the said communication, it was stated that as he is in prison, he can seek permission from the competent court of law and attend the parliamentary session. 5. Before the writ court, it was asserted that the appellant-petitioner has a constitutional right to participate in the parliamentary proceedings and right to vote as an elective representative; that the parliamentary democracy is the basic feature of the Constitution of India and to sustain the same in proper perspective, the participation of the appellant in the Parliament and, if necessary, to cast his vote was imperative; that the Pune constituency of which he is the elected representative would go without a voice unless he is permitted to represent the cause of the constituency in the Parliament in case there is necessity to do so; that the appellant has the constitutional obligation