9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (12) TMI 1786 - SC - Indian LawsGrant of interim bail/anticipatory bail - concealment and suppression of material facts - private respondents cannot be held guilty of any suppression, concealment or fraud in this matter for the simple reason that the petitions were prepared on 15.09.2017 and accepted by the Registry of the Punjab Haryana High Court on 17.09.2017 - HELD THAT - The fact relating to the withdrawal of the Resolution passed by the District Bar Associations, Gurugram and Sohna cannot be said to be in the knowledge of the private respondents. Moreover, this plea had been dealt with by learned single Judge in the order dated 07.10.2017 and had been negated. Further, we cannot lose sight of the fact that this incident had received wide coverage in the media, both electronic and print. In fact, it can be said that there was a trial by media, therefore, when the private respondents have directly approached the High Court for grant of anticipatory/interim bail under Section 438 of the Code, that too when the High Court has concurrent jurisdiction, we cannot find any fault with the action of the private respondents. Coming to the merits of the case, on going through the FIR registered by the Police Station, Bhondsi dated 08.09.2017 which admittedly has been re-registered by the CBI, we find that no allegation has been made against the private respondents herein - thus, as on date, the CBI is yet to examine and analyse the role of the private respondents in this case and there is no evidence of their complicity in the crime and there is not even a pointer of involvement of respondents herein in the alleged crime. Their involvement cannot be established until and unless, there is some substantial evidence against them. Without expressing anything on the merits of the case as the investigation is still under progress and the CBI is yet to come to a conclusion regarding the involvement of the private respondents in the crime, the private respondents herein have made out a case for grant of protection by way of interim bail till the presentation of Challan by the CBI as has been passed by learned single Judge. Therefore, the order passed by learned single Judge granting interim bail to the answering respondents till the presentation of Challan cannot be faulted with - Appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Grant of interim bail to the top management executives of Ryan International School. 2. Allegations of suppression and fraud by the private respondents. 3. Jurisdiction of the High Court versus Sessions Court. 4. Media influence on the case. 5. Merits of the case concerning the involvement of the private respondents in the crime. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Grant of Interim Bail: The appeal was directed against the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, which granted interim bail to the top management executives of Ryan International School. The High Court had granted interim bail till the presentation of the challan, subject to certain conditions. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, noting that the CBI investigation was still at an initial stage, and there was no substantial evidence against the private respondents. 2. Allegations of Suppression and Fraud: The appellant contended that the private respondents had concealed and suppressed material facts and committed fraud while approaching the High Court for interim bail. However, the Supreme Court found that the private respondents could not be held guilty of suppression or fraud because the petitions were prepared before the withdrawal of the Bar Association's resolution, and this plea had already been addressed by the High Court. 3. Jurisdiction of the High Court versus Sessions Court: The appellant argued that the private respondents should have approached the Sessions Court in Gurugram instead of directly approaching the High Court. The Supreme Court dismissed this argument, stating that the High Court has concurrent jurisdiction, and given the media coverage and the nature of the case, the direct approach to the High Court was justified. 4. Media Influence on the Case: The Supreme Court acknowledged that the case had received extensive media coverage, which could influence public perception. This media trial justified the private respondents' decision to approach the High Court directly for anticipatory/interim bail. 5. Merits of the Case: On the merits, the Supreme Court noted that the FIR registered by the local police and re-registered by the CBI did not contain any allegations against the private respondents. The CBI's investigation had not produced any evidence implicating the private respondents in the crime. The High Court had observed that the CBI was still working on possibilities and had not issued any notice to the private respondents to join the investigation. The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court's assessment that there was no substantial evidence of the private respondents' involvement in the crime. Conclusion: The Supreme Court concluded that the private respondents had made out a case for interim bail till the presentation of the challan. The conditions laid down by the High Court for the interim bail were deemed appropriate. The appeal was dismissed, and the order of the High Court was upheld, ensuring that the private respondents would remain on interim bail until the CBI completed its investigation and presented the challan.
|
