Anticipatory Bail In Multi-Layered Corruption Cases Would Thwart Probe: Madras High Court While Denying Relief To Anbil Mahesh

It may be noted that soon after the court denied anticipatory bail, Mahesh has been arrested by the Tamil Nadu police in connection with the alleged Rs 100 crore corruption case.

Justice V Lakshminarayanan observed that cases like the one against Mahesh will require the police to check multiple accounts and money trails. Thus, the court held that when several players were involved in a conspiracy, granting anticipatory bail would thwart the investigation.

“It is not as if the police had been informed about the involvement of the petitioner [Anbil Mahesh] at the initial stage itself. It was during the course of investigation that they stumbled across materials, which revealed to them the alleged involvement of the accused. Such kind of cases will require the police to check multiple accounts and money trails. Therefore, in cases of multi-layered corruption, involving manipulation of records, which has several players involved in a conspiracy, granting anticipatory bail will thwart the course of investigation,” the court said.

The court also observed that though the power to grant anticipatory bail is wide, the scope of its application has reduced in matters relating to corruption and socio-economic offences. The court added that though courts should take a pro-liberty approach generally, in cases where an influential politician is involved, the public interest would demand unearthing the conspiracy against the individual liberty.

“Analysis of the law on the point shows that there has been a tectonic jurisprudential shift in the law relating to anticipatory bail in matters relating to corruption. While the power to grant anticipatory bail is wide and expansive, the scope of discretion to grant it has reduced when applications are filed in matters relating to corruption or socio-economic offences. A careful analysis of the aforesaid judgments shows that such cases are to be treated as a “class apart”, as held in P.Chidambaram's case. While the pro-liberty view taken in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia's case is to be applied in general, when an influential person like a politician is involved, the principles laid down in Anil Sharma's case and reiterated by the Supreme Court over a period of two decades and a half comes into operation. It is because public interest demands unearthing a deep conspiracy when pitted against individual liberty,” the court said.

The court also observed that corruption was a grave economic offence which not only affected the public exchequer but was also a crime against humanity. The court added that in corruption cases, the court had to consider the person's ability to tamper the evidence and thus the consideration for anticipatory bail in such cases would be fundamentally different from normal bail cases.

“This court, while dealing with an application for anticipatory bail, would have to keep in mind that corruption is a grave economic offence. It not only affects the public exchequer but is also a crime against humanity and directly affects the human rights. In cases such as these, the court has to keep in mind the position that had been occupied by the petitioner and thereby, his ability to tamper with the State machineries or influence witnesses. I should hasten to add that the consideration for anticipatory bail is fundamentally different from grant of bail in such cases,” the court observed.

On perusing the materials, the court observed that there was a strong apprehension that Mahesh would use his liberty to influence witnesses, destroy physical evidence and hamper investigation. The court also noted that there was evidence which would suggest that Mahesh had shielded Muthukumar, the second accused in the case who was absconding presently.

“When a strong apprehension arises that the petitioner will use the liberty to influence witnesses, hamper investigation or destroy physical evidences, it operates as general exception for the rule set forth above. Prima facie, the records reveal that the absconding accused - A2 has been shielded by the petitioner,” the court said.

Though Mahesh's side argued that the evidence in the case was documentary and that a custodial interrogation would not be necessary, the court held that in cases involving money trails, custodial interrogation would be necessary to establish the intent and identity of those holding the strings and the final destination of the amount.

The court was thus of the opinion that granting anticipatory bail to Mahesh would paralyse the investigation. The court added that while it had a duty to protect the individual liberty, it had to be weighted against the need of the society for a corruption free government.

The court was thus not inclined to grant anticipatory bail and dismissed Mahesh's plea.