9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Cancellation of Bail 2. Compliance with Proviso to Section 439(1) of Cr.P.C. 3. Allegations of Pressure Tactics and Intimidation 4. Locus Standi of Respondents to File Application for Cancellation of Bail 5. Transfer of Trial Summary: Cancellation of Bail: The appeal challenges the High Court's order dated 6.8.2012, which canceled the bail granted to the appellant in Crime No. 13/2006. The appellant, along with 56 others, was charged with various offences u/s 120-B, 406, 409, 411, 420, 465, 466, 468, 471, 109 read with Section 34 of IPC, and Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The High Court's order was stayed by the Supreme Court on 7.8.2012. Compliance with Proviso to Section 439(1) of Cr.P.C.: The High Court noted that the Sessions Judge did not comply with the mandatory proviso to Section 439(1) of Cr.P.C., which requires giving notice to the public prosecutor before granting bail in cases punishable with life imprisonment. The Sessions Judge's order was passed without giving adequate time to the prosecutor to respond to the charge-sheet, which ran into more than 268 pages. Allegations of Pressure Tactics and Intimidation: The investigating officer, Mr. Pandharinath Ramchandra Pawar, filed an affidavit detailing how the appellant and other accused resorted to pressure tactics, including leading a 'morcha' to the police station and creating an atmosphere of terror in Jalgaon. The affidavit highlighted the appellant's involvement in these activities, which aimed to intimidate witnesses and the investigation machinery. Locus Standi of Respondents to File Application for Cancellation of Bail: The appellant contended that respondent Nos. 2 to 4 had no locus standi to file the application for cancellation of bail. However, the High Court's inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. allows it to entertain such applications to secure the ends of justice. The respondents, being residents and taxpayers of Jalgaon, were deemed to have the locus standi to seek cancellation of bail. Transfer of Trial: Given the attempts to intimidate witnesses and the investigating officer, the Supreme Court ordered the transfer of the trial from Jalgaon to Dhule to ensure a free and fearless atmosphere for the trial. The trial will be conducted by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Dhule, in charge of cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was directed to surrender to the City Police Station, Jalgaon, within two weeks. The trial records were ordered to be transferred to the Addl. Sessions Judge, Dhule, within four weeks. The observations made were specific to the issue of bail cancellation and not indicative of the trial's outcome.
|
