IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO : 572 of 2010 Between: Byrraju Ramalinga Raju, S/o B.Satyanarayana Raju, M/s. Satyam Computer Services Ltd., R/o Plot No.1242, Road No.62, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND The State of A.P., Rep. by the Spl.Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases, High Court of A.P., 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.1 on bail in C.C.No.187/2009 in R.C.No.4 (S) of 2009 of C.B.I., Hyderabad, pending on the file of the XIV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, on such terms and conditions as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity. The Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr.BHARAT KUMAR, Advocate for the Petitioner and of the Public Prosecutor, on behalf of the Respondent. CRIMINAL PETITION NO : 454 of 2010 Between: Vantimitta Suryanarayana Prabhakara Gupta, S/o V.L.Suryanarayana Sresty, R/o Plot No.8, Madhupala Enclave, Bowenpally, Secunderabad - 09. ..... PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Through C.B.I. & S.P.E., Hyderabad. Represented by its Spl.Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, 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 on bail in Cr.No.RC-4(S)2009/CBI/HYD on the file of the CBI & SPE, Hyderabad with or without sureties. The Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr.VENKATESWARA RAO GUDAPATI, 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. 572 & 454 of 2010 Common order: These two bail applications are filed on behalf of the petitioners, A-1 and A-10 respectively, in C.C.No. 187 of 2009 on the file of the learned XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, arising out of R.C.No. 4(S) of 2009/CBI/Hyderabad. 2. The allegations against the petitioners are under sections 120-B read with Section 420, 419,467, 468, 471, 477-A and 201 of IPC. 3. The allegations against A-1 (Petitioner in Crl.P.No. 572 of 2010), inter alia, include that cash and bank balances as shown in the balance sheet did not reflect the true state of affairs of SCSL; the cash and bank balances available in the current account with various banks and the cash available in deposit accounts did not reflect correct figures; as per the balance sheet, cash and bank balance were to a tune of Rs.5160,33,54,789.00; whereas the actual balances were only to a tune of Rs.5020,55,32,125.00. There was falsification of accounts with regard to TDS accrued interest, inflation of sales by generating false invoices, floating of 327 companies indulging in financial irregularities with regard to the affairs of those companies by showing inflated Debtor position etc; Offloading shares of the company by A-1 and by other promoters of the company; publication of falsified figures with regard to utilization of employees on profitable projects; inflating revenues; violation of auditing and assurance standards. There are allegations of forging of bank FDS also. It is also alleged that A-1, along with A-10, the petitioner in Crl.P.No. 454 of 2010, made wrongful gain over a period of time by artificially inflating share prices of M/s. Satyam Computer Services Ltd (SCSL). They infused false invoices into accounting system of SCSL; have ensured artificial hike in the share value of the company by projecting false picture about the fiscal health of the company in the published statements. The performance of the company was projected to be very good and many investors were induced to invest in the shares of the company, whereby the share price remained high and at an opportune time, the accused offloaded the shares and wrongfully gained, on account of which the Indian, as well as Foreign Investors suffered huge loss to a tune of several thousands of crores of rupees in the transaction of offloading of the share. Thus A-1 and his family members received more than 700 crores of rupees. A-1’s family acquired property worth thousands of crores of rupees with the above funds. In Ranga Reddy and Hyderabad Districts they have acquired 4816 acres of land. 3. There are several allegations with regard to the financial irregularities committed by A-1. It is not required to go into all these details in these bail applications. However, there is no dispute that the case involves alleged manipulation of transactions worth thousands of crores of rupees, effecting thousands of persons not only in India, but throughout the Globe. The case is mostly supported by documentary evidence. 4. Regarding the petitioner in Crl.P.No. 454 of 2010 (A-10) he was in-charge of the accounts and internal audit and he was stated to be instrumental in falsification of accounts running into thousands of crores of rupees; which was done in connivance with A-1, the petitioner in Crl.P.No. 572 of 2010. 5. According to the charge sheet A-10 played important role in fudging. He sold 87,364 shares through DBS Cholamandalam Securities Limited and secured wrongful gain of Rs.4,47,89,668.10 It is alleged that though the concerned brought it to the notice of the petitioner (A-10) about the irregularities with regard to accounts, he ignored the same. Obviously on account of his conspiracy with A-1, he did not get the irregularities to the notice of the Audit and did not take any remedial measures. Thus, he actively participated in the alleged fraudulent transactions belonging to SCSL. 6. The main contention of the learned Senior Counsel, Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, appearing for A-1 (petitioner in Crl.P.No. 572 of 2010) is that as the case depends mostly on documentary evidence, there is no possibility of tampering with the evidence. The case involves, referring to documents, running into thousands of pages and statements of hundreds of witnesses, which cannot be done without the assistance of the petitioner-accused, particularly in a subject of this nature about which none else would be able to assist the counsel, other than the petitioner (A-1) himself. 7. The next contention of the learned Senior Counsel is that the petitioner (A-1) is suffering from serious ailments. He is suffering from Hepatitis, heart ailment and in support of this, material is filed. 8. The contention of the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent is that though charge-sheet is filed, the investigation is still in progress; the fraudulent activities of the petitioner are being still investigated through out the World; as such releasing the petitioner, at this stage, would hamper the investigation. As most of the witnesses are the former employees of the petitioner, there is every likelihood of the petitioner tampering with the evidence. As far as the health of the petitioner is concerned, he is receiving the best available treatment and for that ground he cannot be granted bail. 9. Both the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the petitions also contended that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 257 of 2010 dated:4-2-2010, granted bail to one of the accused (A-5) for the reason that there is no likelihood of the trial even commencing in near future and as the petitioner was in jail since more than one year, bail was granted. 10. The learned Special Public Prosecutor contends that A-5, who was only a statutory auditor, and has allegedly colluded with the present (A-1); whereas the present A-1 is the main accused and the ground on which A-5 was released on bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is not applicable to his case and that as far as A-10 is concerned, the grounds on which A-5 was granted bail are not applicable; as in the case of A-5, he was in jail for more than one year; whereas the present petitioner (A-10) was recently arrested; A- 5 was an independent auditor, who was in-charge of the transaction only for one year; whereas the present petitioner is employee of SCSL and actively participated in the fraudulent transactions. 11. The point for consideration is whether the petitioners are entitled for bail. 12. There is no dispute that the case involves thousands of crores of rupees and according to the learned Special Public Prosecutor the alleged fraud had far reaching consequences on the economy of the country and has lowered the esteem of the corporate image of the country. 13. In view of the nature of the case and the stage at which it stands now, it is not at all desirable to discuss in detail about the merits of the case. As already referred to, the case involves alleged falsification of accounts running into thousands of crores of rupees effecting thousands of people, making unholy profit of crores of rupees by the petitioners at the cost of thousands of innocent public throughout the world, not only that, it had definite impact on the Corporate image of the country. Further more, as contended by the learned Special Public Prosecutor several of the witnesses are the former employees of A-1 and colleagues of A-10, the petitioner in Crl.P.No.454 of 2010. As such there is any amount of likelihood of these petitioners influencing the witnesses, in case they are released on bail. 14. On the question of medical grounds with regard to A-1, whenever required, he is being given the best available treatment as in-patient even, and in the circumstances he cannot be granted bail on the pretext of ill-health. 15. For all the afore said reasons, both the petitions (Crl.P.Nos. 572 and 454 of 2010) are dismissed. _______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. February 19, 2010. *BVS