IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO : 1335 of 2010 Between: Subramani Gopala Krishnan S/o. R.S. Mani R/o. 8-2-293/82/A/1131A, Road No. 36, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad - 34, (In Judicial Custody Since 24-01-2009) ..... PETITIONER AND The State Through Special Public Prosecutor The Central Bureau of Investigation, High Court, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Section ____ of Crl.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased toto enlarge the Petitioner / Accused No.4 on bail in Crime No. RC 4(S)/2009-CBI/HYD of CBI., Hyderabad and in proceedings arising therefrom, including C.C. No. 187/ 2009 and C.C. No. 81 / 2010 on the file of XIV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, City Criminal Courts, Hyderabad. The Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr.KOWTURU PAVAN KUMAR, Advocate for the Petitioner and of the Public Prosecutor, on behalf of the Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER PSR, J. Crl.P.No. 1335 of 2010 O r d e r: The petitioner is A-4 in Crime No. RC 4(S)/2009-CBI/HYD of CBI, Hyderabad and in cases arising there from including. C.C.No. 187 of 2009 and C.C.No. 81 of 2010 on the file of the XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad (What is called as Satyam Computers’ Case). 2. The petitioner was the partner of M/s. Price Water house, a firm of Chartered Accountants, which was appointed as statutory auditors of the Satyam Computers Ltd., (SCL) for the purpose of audit of the accounts for the period from April, 2000 to March, 2007. The allegation against him and A-5, another statutory auditor, who succeeded him, is that they entered into a conspiracy with other accused, mainly A-1, the-then Chairman of SCL and with a criminal intention to defraud the share holders have deliberately resorted to fudging of accounts and by showing inflated figures projecting better financial health of the company, cheated the investors and shareholders, which resulted in fraud of highest magnitude in the corporate history of the country. The accused have allegedly certified the financial statements and balance sheet to be true and correct with full knowledge that the figures stated therein were fudged and inflated; they do not reflect the correct position and the petitioner gave a false certificate for the period of six years from April, 2000 to March, 2007 with full knowledge that the figures are false. The petitioner/accused received huge amounts for indulging in this fraud. 3. The petitioner is in custody from 24.1.2009. The earlier bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed by this court vide common order in Crl.P.Nos. 3984 and 3985 of 2009, in which the case of A-5 was also considered and subsequently A-5 approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court granted him bail. 4. Sri Siddharth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, now contends that the case of the present petitioner is substantially same as of A-5, who was granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as he was also auditor during some relevant period and the allegations are also similar to that of A-5. It is also the contention of the learned senior counsel that there is no likelihood of the commencement of the trial in near future, as documents running into thousands of pages are filed, hundreds of witnesses are cited and further investigation is still in progress and additional charge sheet is contemplated; as such leave alone the completion of trial, there is no possibility of commencement of trial in near future. 5. On the other hand, the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the CBI contends that the present petitioner is mainly responsible for fudging of the accounts of the company in collusion with A-1 and he was the auditor for long period of six years, during which, major portion of fudging had taken place and without his cooperation there was no possibility for A-1 to commit fudging. 6. There appears to be no serious dispute about the fraud running into thousands of crores of rupees taking place by manipulation of accounts. There is no dispute that the petitioner was the auditor for substantial period of more than six years and there appears to be no dispute about major portion of the alleged fraud taking place during the above period. It can reasonably be suspected that without the active connivance and cooperation of the present petitioner, there was no possibility for the main accused (A- 1) to indulge in manipulation of the accounts resulting in the offence. At this stage, it is not desirable to go into the merits of the case in detail. In view of the magnitude of the offence and the manner, it was committed, it is not a case where the petitioner can be granted bail. 7. The contention that the Hon’ble Supreme Court granted bail to A-5, who is similarly placed; as such the petitioner also shall be granted bail is not tenable. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while granting bail to A-5 in Criminal Appeal No. 257 of 2010 on 04-02- 2010, observed that “We have considered the rival contentions raised by the learned ASG. The charge sheet is running into several thousand pages and the C.B.I. proposes to examine 470 witnesses. A very large volume of records have been produced in this case. Therefore, it can be easily assumed that the trial of this case will take a long time even to start. We do not express any opinion on the merits of this case regarding the nature of offence or gravity thereof allegedly committed by the accused-appellant” and granted bail imposing certain conditions. 8. Except the fact that the petitioner was in jail for long period like A-5, who was granted bail, by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide orders referred to above, the case of the petitioner is not similar to that of A-5. A-5 was in-charge of the audit for only a year; whereas the allegation against the petitioner is of being in-charge of the audit for over six years, during which period substantial fraud has allegedly taken place. Incase the petitioner did not cooperate and in case he was not hand-in-glove with the main accused, there was no possibility of the fraud being committed. Further the investigation is in progress with regard to the fraud throughout the world and the main accused is not granted bail. 9. Learned Senior counsel contends that the petitioner retired from service; he is an aged person suffering from the problems associated with age and for that reason also he is entitled for bail. There is no material to show that the petitioner is suffering from any substantially serious ailment for which no treatment can be granted through jail. 10. The ground mentioned in the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that in view of the fact that substantial number of witnesses are cited; there is voluminous record, it may take long time for commencement of the trial, is no doubt available to the petitioner in this petition also; but in view of the nature of involvement alleged against the petitioner, as referred to above, he cannot be granted bail, on the ground that there is possibility of long delay in completion of the trial. 11. The petition dismissed. _______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. February 25, 2010. *BVS