HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Dated Nainital the 8th December, 2010 1st Bail Application No. 998 of 2010 Order on the bail application of the accused. Subhash Chand S/o Rati Ram ……. Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand Through C.B.I. Superintendent of Police (C.B.I.) S.P.E. Dehradun …….. Opposite Party In Case Crime No. R.C. 0072009A0006 U/S 420, 201, 120-B I.P.C. and 13 (2) read with Section (13) (1) (D) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 66 of Information Technology Act P.S. C.B.I. Dehradun, District Dehradun With 1st Bail Application No. 999 of 2010 Order on the bail application of the accused. Sayeed Zaidi S/o Shri Aun Mohammed ……. Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand Through C.B.I. Superintendent of Police (C.B.I.) S.P.E. Dehradun …….. Opposite Party In Case Crime No. R.C. 0072009A0006 U/S 420, 201, 120-B I.P.C. and 13 (2) read with Section (13) (1) (D) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 66 of Information Technology Act P.S. C.B.I. Dehradun, District Dehradun With 1st Bail Application No. 1014 of 2010 Order on the bail application of the accused. Zia Alam S/o Shri Mohammed Zaki ……. Applicant Versus Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., Branch S.P.E. Dehradun …….. Opposite Party In Case Crime No. R.C. 0072009A0006 U/S 420, 201, 120-B I.P.C. and 13 (2) read with Section (13) (1) (D) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 66 of Information Technology Act P.S. C.B.I. Dehradun, District Dehradun Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Shri Amrendra Nath Tripathi, the learned counsel for the applicant-Subhash Chand, Mrs. Prabha Naithani, the learned counsel for the applicant-Sayeed Zaidi, Shri R.P. Nautiyal, the learned counsel assisted by Shri H.C. Joshi, the learned counsel for the applicant-Zia Alam and Shri Arvind Vashisht, the learned counsel for the respondent/C.B.I. The computer of the telephone exchange was hacked by certain employees of the B.S.N.L. in conspiracy with certain outsiders by which free international calls were made from certain telephone numbers. The applicants Zia Alam and Sayeed Zaidi were not named in the F.I.R. Subsequently, a chargesheet was filed in which the applicants Zia Alam and Sayeed Zaidi were also not named. A supplementary chargesheet was thereafter filed before the trial court in which it was stated that the applicants Zia Alam was a middlman and was involved in transferring the money from Sayeed Zaidi to Subhash Chand. In so far as Sayeed Zaidi is concerned his role in the supplementary chargesheet was that he was an ‘agent of I.S.D. call.’ The learned counsel submits that the applicants Zia Alam and Sayeed Zaidi are not public servants and the allegations of connivance of the applicants with the other accused is not clear in the F.I.R. and the circumstantial evidence does not give a complete chain of events. On the other hand, Shri Arvind Vashisth, the learned counsel for the C.B.I. vehemently contended that pursuant to the investigation, it was found that these applicants were involved in the illegal activity and were instrumental in transferring ill gotten gains from one person to another person. The fact is that no amount was recovered from them. The fact as to how much the applicants received as their share is not known. Admittedly, the applicants are not employees of B.S.N.L and the tampering of the meter and allowing free international calls from certain numbers indicates an inside job which could not have been done by the applicants being outsiders. The court further finds that the chain of events appears to be incomplete in so far as circumstantial evidence that has been brought on record before the Court against the applicants concerned. It has also come on record that another accused named in the supplementary chargesheet, Abdul Mazid, who also had no specific role to play in the alleged consipiracy was enlarged on bail by an order dated 25th November, 2010 in BA1 No. 878 of 2010. Consequently, at this stage, the Court is of the opinion that the applicants Zia Alam and Sayeed Zaidi deserves to be enlarged on bail. Let the applicants Zia Alam and Sayeed Zaidi be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. R.C. 0072009A0006 U/S 420, 201, 120-B I.P.C. and 13 (2) read with Section (13) (1) (D) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 66 of Information Technology Act, on executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate concerned. In so far as the applicant Subhash Chand is concerned, the Court finds that he has specific role to play in the alleged consipiracy hatched by the employee of the B.S.N.L. with Subhash Chand and his co-relatives. The chargesheet indicates that he had filled up a form in his own hand writing and got himself allocated a telephone number which he was using and through this telephone number in his name and other telephone numbers in the name of his wife and other relatives, in consipiracy, allowed international calls to be made. Primafacie, sufficient evidence has come on record to indicate his role in the criminal consipiracy hatched between the applicant Subhash with his relatives and the employees of the B.S.N.L. Consequently, the court is of the opinion that at this stage, the applicant Subhash Chand is not entititled to be enlarged on bail. His bail application is accordingly rejected. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 08.12.2010 Shiv