2004 (3) TMI 763 - SC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of bail - tampering with witnesses - Legal principles governing the grant of bail in non-bailable offences - HELD THAT - We respectfully agree with the dictum of Puran Vs. Rambilas 2001 (5) TMI 971 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA and Another of this Court. We also feel that such expression of prima facie reasons for granting bail is a requirement of law in cases where such orders on bail application are appealable, more so because of the fact that the appellate court has every right to know the basis for granting the bail. Therefore, we are not in agreement with argument addressed by the learned counsel for the accused that the High Court was not expected even to indicate a prima facie finding on all points urged before it while granting bail, more so in the background of the facts of this case where on facts it is established that a large number of witnesses who were examined after the respondent was enlarged on bail had turned hostile and there are complaints made to the court as to the threats administered by the respondent or his supporters to witnesses in the case. In such circumstances, the Court was duty bound to apply its mind to the allegations put forth by the investigating agency and ought to have given at least a prima facie finding in regard to these allegations because they go to the very root of the right of the accused to seek bail. The non consideration of these vital facts as to the allegations of threat or inducement made to the witnesses by the respondent during the period he was on bail has vitiated the conclusions arrived at by the High Court while granting bail to the respondent. The other ground apart from the ground of incarceration which appealed to the High Court to grant bail was the fact that a large number of witnesses are yet to be examined and there is no likelihood of the trial coming to an end in the near future. Thus, this ground on the facts of this case is also not sufficient either individually or coupled with the period of incarceration to release the respondent on bail because of the serious allegations of tampering of the witnesses made against the respondent. In the impugned order we do not see any such fresh ground recorded by the High Court while granting bail. It also failed to take into consideration that at least on four occasions order refusing bail has been affirmed by this Court and subsequently when the High Court did grant bail, this Court by its order dated 26th July, 2000 cancelled the said bail by a reasoned order. From the impugned order, we do not notice any indication of the fact that the High Court took note of the grounds which persuaded this Court to cancel the bail. Such approach of the High Court, in our opinion, is violative of the principle of binding nature of judgments of superior court rendered in a lis between the same parties, and in effect tends to ignore and thereby render ineffective the principles enunciated therein which have a binding character. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court was not justified in granting bail to the first respondent on the ground that he has been in custody for a period of 3 years or that there is no likelihood of the trial being concluded in the near future, without taking into consideration the other factors referred to hereinabove in this judgment of ours. This appeal, therefore, succeeds. The impugned order of the High Court is set aside. The bail-bonds of the first respondent are cancelled and the second respondent is directed to take the first respondent into custody forthwith.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Grant of bail to the first respondent.
2. Allegations of tampering with witnesses.
3. Legal principles governing the grant of bail in non-bailable offences.

Summary:

1. Grant of Bail to the First Respondent:
The appellant, the complainant in CBI Case No.RC.12(S)/98/SIC.IV/New Delhi, challenged the High Court's order granting bail to the first respondent, accused of conspiring to murder Ajit Sarkar, an MLA from Purnea constituency. The High Court had granted bail to the first respondent on the grounds of prolonged incarceration and the unlikelihood of the trial concluding soon. The Supreme Court noted that the first respondent had made multiple unsuccessful bail applications before the High Court and the Supreme Court, with the seventh application being allowed by the High Court but later canceled by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court's decision to grant bail on the same grounds previously rejected by the Supreme Court was erroneous and violated the principle of binding judgments.

2. Allegations of Tampering with Witnesses:
The appellant and the CBI contended that the first respondent had misused his liberty by threatening witnesses, leading to several witnesses turning hostile. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had failed to consider these allegations of witness tampering while granting bail. The Court highlighted that the High Court should have given at least a prima facie finding on these allegations, as they were crucial to the accused's right to seek bail.

3. Legal Principles Governing the Grant of Bail in Non-Bailable Offences:
The Supreme Court reiterated the well-settled principles for granting bail in non-bailable offences, emphasizing that the discretion should be exercised judiciously and not as a matter of course. The Court outlined factors to be considered, including the nature of the accusation, the severity of the punishment, the nature of supporting evidence, and the reasonable apprehension of tampering with witnesses or threats to the complainant. The Court also stressed that in cases where earlier bail applications have been rejected, the subsequent application must consider the grounds for previous rejections and provide specific reasons for granting bail despite those rejections.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court was not justified in granting bail to the first respondent based on the period of incarceration and the delay in concluding the trial, without considering the allegations of witness tampering and the binding nature of previous Supreme Court judgments. The appeal was allowed, the High Court's order was set aside, and the bail-bonds of the first respondent were canceled, directing the second respondent to take the first respondent into custody forthwith.