1 cri.appln 3448-2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3448 OF 2010 The Central Bureau of Investigation ...Applicant vs. Shri Mahendra Chandrahans Satav & Ors....Respondents Mr.A.S. Gadkar for the Applicant. Mr.Milind Telgote i/.b. Mr.D.V. Mirajkar for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr.J.P. Kharge, APP for Respondent No.3-State. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : NOVEMBER 23, 2010 P.C. :- 1 Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2 The CBI has sought cancellation of bail granted to the accused persons by the learned Special Judge in RC No.6(E)/2009/CBI/BS & FC/Mumbai. Prosecution case appears to be that National Hydro Electric Power Corporation Ltd., Faridabad, had awarded a huge contract in respect of civil work for Diversion Tunnel, Coffer Dams, Concrete Gravity Dam, 2 cri.appln 3448-2010 Desilting Chamber, HRT and Associated Works of SEWA Project Stage-II Jammu & Kashmir to M/s.Gammon Srinivasa JV, who had in turn gave said contract to M/s.Satav Constructions Pvt.Ltd. The accused persons are Directors of said Satav Constructions Pvt.Ltd. Several banks including UCO Bank had formed a Consortium to provide finance to the tune of Rs.160 crores. Amount of Rs.27.56 crores was financed by UCO Ban. However, there were delays and the work could not be completed and the amount was not repaid to the concerned banks. Therefore, the matter was taken up by CBI and case was registered. The accused were arrested. The trial court granted bail to both the accused by two different orders dated 22nd April, 2010 and 27th April, 2010. It was noted that all the relevant documents were already seized by the CBI. Even the special Auditor appointed by the Consortium Banks had opined that it was difficult to ascertain and conclude whether there was a genuine delay in execution of the work and losses. 3 cri.appln 3448-2010 3 The bail orders are mainly challenged on the ground that the investigation was still going on when the bail was granted and therefore, it could hamper the further investigation. Now, the learned APP makes a statement that investigation has already been completed and the charge sheet has also been filed and thus, the ground of hampering in the investigation is also no more available. 4 Taking into consideration the nature of the case, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. 5 The application stands rejected. (J.H. BHATIA, J.)