Judgment :- 1. Since common factual matrix are involved in these three bail petitions, they are tagged together and are being disposed of by this single order. 2. Offences alleged are under Sections 120-B read with Sections 409, 420 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. Petitioners are viz., S.Kannan (Crl.O.P.No.4371/2015), K.S. Ravi (Crl.O.P.No.4372/2015) and V.Gowthaman (Crl.O.P.No.4373/2015) are A-4 to A-6 in this case. 4. According to Mr. R.Shanmugasundaram, learned Senior Counsel for A-4, petitioner is Chief Technical Officer (CTO) in Sun TV Network Ltd., Chennai. He has been implicated in this case. He is a private person. He is not a public servant. As per the orders of his Company, he has purchased telecommunication equipments in large numbers. For that matter, he has been implicated in this case. This case is of the year 2004. Enquiry was conducted in 2011. FIR was registered in 2013. Prosecution's plea for police custody has been negatived by the C.B.I. Court as well as by this Court. With the permission of the Court, the C.B.I. also interrogated the petitioner at the jail for 3 days. 5. The learned Senior Counsel further contended that this case is mainly based on documents. Large number of documents have been collected by C.B.I. Statement of several witnesses have been recorded. Petitioner is in jail for a considerable period. He is residing in Chennai. Petitioner will not, cannot interfere with investigation. He will not flee away from justice. In the facts and circumstances, he may be granted bail. 6. Mr.ARL.Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel for A-5 contended that petitioner is an ordinary Electrician in Sun TV Network. Nothing to show that Sun TV had misused telephones installed at the residence of the former Union Minister/A-1. There is no scientific evidence to establish this alleged misuse. A-5 is a private person. His plea for police custody was turned down by both the Courts. With the permission of the Court, C.B.I. also interrogated him in jail for 3 days. The nature of the evidence is mainly documentary in nature. All the documents were recovered. They are with the C.B.I. Petitioner cannot have access to them. Major part of investigation is over. Petitioner will not interfere with the investigation. There is no further need to keep him in jail. He will not flee away from justice. The nature of the evidence is mainly documentary in nature. All the documents were recovered. They are with the C.B.I. Petitioner cannot have access to them. Major part of investigation is over. Petitioner will not interfere with the investigation. There is no further need to keep him in jail. He will not flee away from justice. Petitioner has been in jail for a considerable period. Bail is the rule and jail is the exception. In the facts and circumstances of the case, A-5's case will not fall under any exceptional category. In the circumstances, he may be granted bail. 7. Mr. P.S.Raman, learned Senior Counsel for A-6 submitted that the petitioner was the Additional Private Secretary to the former Union Telecom Minister/A-1. Even as per the allegations in the F.I.R., the alleged misuse of official position has been monetarily calculated at Rs.1,20,87,769/-. On proper calculation, at the most it would be around Rs.5 lakhs. A-6 has been provided with service telephone because of his then occupation as an Additional Private Secretary to the Union Communication Minister. In this case, physical evidence has been collected. Interrogation at the jail is also over. Petitioner is in jail for a considerable period. Petitioner will not interfere with the investigation. He will not flee away from justice. He is ready to abide by any condition the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and impose upon him. Thus, his further detention in jail is unnecessary. In the facts and circumstances, he may be granted bail. 8. C.B.I. filed counters. 9. Mr. K.Srinivasan, learned Special Public Prosecutor/C.B.I. reiterated the averments in the counters. The learned Special Public Prosecutor also submitted that at the behest of A-1, petitioners have participated in the commission of offence. They have conspired together with the main accused/A-1. They have committed an economic offence. A-1 is an influential person. He has much political clout. He has large men and materials at his command. Petitioners are having connection with him. In the circumstances, if they are let out on bail, they will interfere with the investigation. 10. The learned Special Public Prosecutor also contended that petitioners have abetted A-1 in installing 364 telephone connections at his residence under service category. A-1 is not entitled to the same. Petitioners have manipulated many things in collusion with top BSNL officials. BSNL facilities have been misused. 10. The learned Special Public Prosecutor also contended that petitioners have abetted A-1 in installing 364 telephone connections at his residence under service category. A-1 is not entitled to the same. Petitioners have manipulated many things in collusion with top BSNL officials. BSNL facilities have been misused. It has been used for Sun TV Network, owned by A-1's brother. The total amount of monetary benefit derived now could not be assessed as it involves lot of work. Investigation is going on. In the circumstances, grant of bail is opposed. 11. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions, perused the averments in the bail petitions and in the counters and I have also perused the typed set of documents and other papers produced. 12. Now the question is whether in the facts and circumstances, petitioners could be granted bail ? 13. A-1/Dayanidhi Maran was Union Minister for Communication and Information Technology from 26.5.2004 to 13.5.2007. Subsequently, he was Member of Parliament till 2009. While he was Union Minister, A-6 was his Additional Private Secretary. A-1's brother Kalanidhi Maran owns Sun TV Network. Its Chief Technical Officer is A-4. A-5 is an Electrician in the said TV Company. 14. When he was Central Minister, A-1 is alleged to have installed 364 telephone connections at his residence and misused his official position and had monetary advantage and the telephone connections were also misused for his brother's Sun TV Network. In this A-4 to A-6 have conspired together with A-1 and certain BSNL officials and they have abetted the commission of the offences. 15. In this connection, A-4 to A-6 were arrested on 21.1.2015. They were remanded by the learned Principal Special Judge, C.B.I. Court, Chennai on 22.1.2015. Subsequently, their police custody was sought for. The said Court rejected it. As against that C.B.I. preferred Crl.O.P in this Court. It was dismissed on 2.2.2015. Petitioners' bail petitions were twice dismissed by the C.B.I. Court, Chennai. 16. The core of the arguments of the learned Senior Counsels for the petitioners is that Bail is the Rule, jail is the exception, more particularly, as on date petitioners are presumed to be innocent unless there are explicit exceptional reasons, they cannot be denied bail. In the facts and circumstances, their further detention is unnecessary. And their continuation in jail is negation of their fundamental right to life guaranteed in Article 21 Constitution of India. 17. In the facts and circumstances, their further detention is unnecessary. And their continuation in jail is negation of their fundamental right to life guaranteed in Article 21 Constitution of India. 17. The core of the submission of the C.B.I. is that the petitioners are concerned with the commission of economic offence. Larger interest of the State also to be considered in considering their bail plea, when especially the case is at the investigation stage. 18. These two extreme views were considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra vs. C.B.I. { (2012) 1 SCC 40 } also known as 2G Scam case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court advocated a balanced approach in dealing with the right of the individual as well as the interest of the State. 19. In Sanjay Chandra (supra), in paras 21, 27, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:- “21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. 27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It is also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.” 20. In State of Rajasthan vs. Balchand { (1977) 4 SCC 308 }, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: "2. The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like, by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the Court. We do not intend to be exhaustive but only illustrative.” 21. In Vaman Narain Ghiya vs. State of Rajasthan { (2009) 2 SCC 281 }, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: “7. We do not intend to be exhaustive but only illustrative.” 21. In Vaman Narain Ghiya vs. State of Rajasthan { (2009) 2 SCC 281 }, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: “7. Personal liberty is fundamental and can be circumscribed only by some process sanctioned by law. Liberty of a citizen is undoubtedly important but this is to balance with the security of the community. A balance is required to be maintained between the personal liberty of the accused and the investigational right of the police. It must result in minimum interference with the personal liberty of the accused and the right of the police to investigate the case. It has to dovetail two conflicting demands, namely, on the one hand the requirements of the society for being shielded from the hazards of being exposed to the misadventures of a person alleged to have committed a crime; and on the other, the fundamental canon of criminal jurisprudence viz. the presumption of innocence of an accused till he is found guilty. Liberty exists in proportion to wholesome restraint, the more restraint on others to keep off from us, the more liberty we have. {See A.K.Gopalan vs. State of Madras { AIR 1950 SC 27 } “8. The law of bail, like any other branch of law, has its own philosophy, and occupies an important place in the administration of justice and the concept of bail emerges from the conflict between the police power to restrict liberty of a man who is alleged to have committed a crime, and presumption of innocence in favour of the alleged criminal. An accused is not detained in custody with the object of punishing him on the assumption of his guilt." 22. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra { (2011) 1 SCC 694 }, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: "84. Just as liberty is precious to an individual, so is the society's interest in maintenance of peace, law and order. Both are equally important." "116. Personal liberty is a very precious fundamental right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative according to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case." 23. In Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT, Delhi { (2001) 4 SCC 280 }, Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the following principles to be considered in considering bail petitions. "8. Personal liberty is a very precious fundamental right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative according to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case." 23. In Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT, Delhi { (2001) 4 SCC 280 }, Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the following principles to be considered in considering bail petitions. "8. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of well-settled principles having regard to the circumstances of each case and not in an arbitrary manner. While granting the bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character, behaviour, means and standing of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public or State and similar other considerations.” (Also see Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan { (2005) 2 SCC 42 } and State of U.P. vs. Amarmani Tripathi { (2005) 8 SCC 21 }. 24. In Gurcharan Singh and Ors. vs. State { AIR 1978 SC 179 }, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that two paramount considerations, while considering petition for grant of bail in non-bailable offence, apart from the seriousness of the offence, are the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and his tampering with the prosecution witnesses. 25. Thus, individual interest, larger interest of the State, individual behaviour, ability of the accused, his characteristic features having a bearing on the case, work of the Investigation Agency, nature of the offences, accusations, ability of the accused to meddle with the investigation process, need for his further detention, work of the Investigation Agency have all to be considered by the Court in considering the bail plea of the accused persons. 26. The period of alleged misuse of the official position by A-1 is from June 2004 to June 2007. During 2011, C.B.I. conducted preliminary enquiry (P.E.). 26. The period of alleged misuse of the official position by A-1 is from June 2004 to June 2007. During 2011, C.B.I. conducted preliminary enquiry (P.E.). Thereafter on 23.7.2013 based on source information, CBI, STF, New Delhi registered a case in Crime No.RC DST/2013/A/0019 as against (1) Dayanidhi Maran, the then Union Minister of Communication and Information Technology, (2) K.Brahmadathan, the then Chief General Manager, Chennai, (3) M.P.Velusamy, the then Chief General Manager, Chennai and other unknown persons for offences under Section 120-B read with Sections 409, 420 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 27. It is alleged that Dayanidhi Maran (A-1), while he was functioning as Union Telecom Minister, certain BSNL officials and others have entered into a criminal conspiracy and by abusing his official position A-1 caused huge financial loss to the Exchequer. It is also alleged that Brahmadathan, Velusamy along with other unknown public servants, committed certain acts of criminal misconduct by abusing their official position, in violation of rules/regulations and in the absence of any express provision of law facilitated/provided a number of high end telecommunication facilities i.e., ISDN (Integrated Service Digital Network), BRA (Basic Rate Access), PRA (Prime Rate Access), Broad Band connections and leased line circuits etc., at the residence of A-1. And these telecommunication facilities were treated under service category and no bills were raised for the same during the said period and thereby huge wrongful loss was caused to the Government of India. It is also alleged that the said connections were used by A-1 for Sun TV Network, a Company owned by his elder brother Kalanidhi Maran. 28. The stand of the C.B.I. is that a Member of Parliament is entitled to three telephone connections and limited calls per annum, more than that the M.P. has to be billed in his name. However, in this case, 364 high end BSNL telephone connections have been installed at the Chennai Gopalapuram residence of A-1 and it was also continued at his changed residence at Boat Club Road, Alwarpet, Chennai. And these connections were made under service category and the office address of the Chief General Manager, Chennai Telephones, Chennai has been furnished and they were also not billed. Actually, A-1 is not entitled to these telephone connections under this category. And these connections were made under service category and the office address of the Chief General Manager, Chennai Telephones, Chennai has been furnished and they were also not billed. Actually, A-1 is not entitled to these telephone connections under this category. A-1 so misused his official position and also lend the services to be utilised by Sun TV. 29. During the relevant period, A-6 was Additional Private Secretary to A-1. A-6 looked after BSNL matters and he is alleged to have conspired and connived with A-1 and others in the the said misuse, abuse and commission of offences. 30. A-4 and A-5 are Chief Technical Officer and Electrician respectively in Sun TV Network. They were alleged to have monitored the wrong use of the said telephone connections by Sun TV Network and have maintained this Network System. 31. A-6 was also alleged to have had a telephone connection under service category to himself. In his statement, Mahalingam, another Additional Private Secretary to A-1 had stated that as being associated with the Minister, A-6 is entitled to similar facility. 32. The monetary value of the financial benefit obtained by A-6 has not been furnished. If any amount of monetary advantage has been enjoyed by A-6 as against the rules and regulations of BSNL, it is always open to BSNL to proceed against him legally to recover the amount. 33. A-5 is an ordinary Electrician. A-4 is a Technical Officer. They are employees of Sun TV Network. 34. It is pertinent to note that the entire abuse of the official position has been mainly directed as against A-1. As per the version of the prosecution, A-4 to A-6 were under the beck and call of the main accused A-1 and they were controlled by him. They appears to be dumb driven cattle. 35. In the FIR, the total monetary benefit by this alleged misuse was calculated at Rs.1,20,87,769. The defence version is that it is inflated. There is no allegation that A-4 to A-6 have derived any monetary advantage. Even the said amount is mainly attributed against A-1. 36. This case is hanging with the C.B.I. since 2004. FIR was registered in 2013. In the interregnum, petitioners were interrogated by C.B.I. With the permission of the C.B.I. Court, they were also interrogated in the jail for 3 days. Many documents were collected. Statement of witnesses were recorded. Even the said amount is mainly attributed against A-1. 36. This case is hanging with the C.B.I. since 2004. FIR was registered in 2013. In the interregnum, petitioners were interrogated by C.B.I. With the permission of the C.B.I. Court, they were also interrogated in the jail for 3 days. Many documents were collected. Statement of witnesses were recorded. Recently statement of the petitioners were recorded and their specimen signatures were also obtained by C.B.I. for comparison and analysis. 37. The nature of the offence alleged involved collection of lot of documents. Many documents were collected. Now, petitioners cannot have any access to them. Huge economic misuse is mainly alleged as against A-1 and not as against the petitioners. 38. Petitioners are having their residence in Chennai. In the circumstances, it is quite unlikely that they will flee away from justice nor interfere with investigation. 39. A-1 may have political influence, he may have large money and men at his command. He may be mighty and highly influential. But because of that bail cannot be denied to the petitioners. Denial of bail to petitioners on that account will amount to unreasonable restriction on their right to life guaranteed in Article 21, Constitution of India when especially so far their presumption of innocence has not been displaced by any Court after a regular trial. Petitioners are in jail for a considerable period. 40. In the facts and circumstances, their further detention as remand prisoners is not necessary. In the circumstances, I am inclined to grant them bail. 41. Ordered as under:- (i) Bail granted to A-4 S.Kannan (petitioner in Crl. O.P. No. 4371/2015), A-5 K.S. Ravi (petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.4372/2015) and A-6 V.Gowthaman (petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.4373/2015). (ii) There shall be two sureties each for A-4 and A-6. The sureties and A-4, A-6 each shall execute a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to the satisfaction of the learned Principal Special Judge, C.B.I. Court, Chennai; (iii) There shall be two sureties for A-5. (ii) There shall be two sureties each for A-4 and A-6. The sureties and A-4, A-6 each shall execute a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to the satisfaction of the learned Principal Special Judge, C.B.I. Court, Chennai; (iii) There shall be two sureties for A-5. He and the two sureties shall execute a bond for Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) to the satisfaction of the said Judge; (iv) Petitioners shall appear before the Investigation Officer daily at 10.30 A.M., at the C.B.I. Office in Shastri Bhavan, Nungambakkam, Chennai until further orders; (v) Petitioners shall surrender their passports and if they are not having the same, they shall file an affidavit to that effect before the said Court.