9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Bail application of the appellants based on the apprehension of influencing witnesses and tampering with evidence. 2. Interpretation and applicability of Section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C. 3. Consideration of the totality of facts and circumstances for granting bail. 4. Allegations of tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses. 5. Legal provisions for granting bail in non-bailable offences. 6. Examination of the complainant and cross-examination in the trial. 7. Addition of a new accused in the criminal conspiracy. 8. Dismissal of bail applications by lower courts and challenges in the High Court. 9. Conditions for granting bail and imposition of necessary restrictions. The Supreme Court reviewed a case where the appellants were accused of inducing payment for securing contracts. The High Court had rejected their bail application based on apprehensions of tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses. The Court examined the totality of circumstances, emphasizing the complainant's commitment and lack of evidence tampering. It noted that the case dated back 16 years with slow progress. The Court analyzed Section 437(1) of the Cr.P.C., highlighting the entitlement to bail unless jeopardizing the prosecution. The Court found no basis for current tampering apprehensions and criticized the High Court's reliance on past unrelated activities. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted bail, subject to stringent conditions like not leaving the country, cooperating with authorities, and attending trial hearings promptly. The Court addressed the interpretation and applicability of Section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C., choosing to focus on the overall circumstances rather than strict compliance. It delved into the nature of the offence, the existing facts, and the lack of evidence supporting tampering fears. The Court dismissed concerns of witness influence, especially given the complainant's steadfast pursuit of justice. The judgment overturned the High Court's decision, emphasizing the need for bail without expressing any opinion on the case's merits. The Court directed the appellants' release on bail, subject to strict conditions to ensure compliance and cooperation with the ongoing legal processes. Furthermore, the Court discussed the dismissal of previous bail applications by lower courts and subsequent challenges in the High Court. It highlighted the reasons for rejection, including new evidence and fears of tampering. The Court scrutinized the grounds for denying bail, emphasizing the lack of current evidence supporting tampering allegations. The judgment set aside the High Court's decision, granting bail to the appellants with stringent conditions to prevent any interference with the legal proceedings.
|
