2012 (1) TMI 407 - SC - Indian Laws

Murder - Offence punishable u/s 302 and 307 IPC - sitting Member of Parliament facing several criminal cases - habitual criminal having more than three dozen cases involving serious offences - Bail Application - Pending proceeding of the trial, the High Court, granted conditional bail to the second Respondent - whether the High Court was justified in enlarging the second Respondent on bail after imposing certain conditions - Second Respondent/accused came from behind in the convoy of cars and immediately after crossing the Appellant's car and his supporters, the convoy of cars belonging to the second Respondent/accused suddenly stopped on the road without giving any signal and the second Respondent/accused came out of his vehicle armed with a gun along with his supporters who were also carrying guns and they started giving kick blows to one of the motorcycle riders who fell down and the pillion riders of the said motorcycles were fired upon by the second Respondent and his supporters from their respective guns and thereafter, they ran away from the place. Adbul Rehman-the pillion rider sustained serious fire arm injuries. When he was taken to the hospital at Varanasi, he succumbed to his injuries. Second Respondent is a sitting Member of Parliament facing several criminal cases, that most of the cases ended in acquittal for want of proper witnesses or pending trial. HELD THAT - As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second Respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc. Taking note of all these aspects, particularly, the fact that the second Respondent was in jail since 24.08.2009, the trial has commenced by examining the two witnesses on the side of the prosecution and the assurance by the State that trial will not be prolonged and conclude within a reasonable time and also of the fact that the High Court while granting bail has imposed several conditions for strict adherence during the period of bail, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the High Court. In fact, in the impugned order itself, the High Court has made it clear that in case of breach of any of the conditions, the trial Court will have liberty to take steps to send the applicant therein (respondent No. 2 herein) to jail again. In addition to the same, it is further made clear that if the Appellant receives any fresh threat from the second respondent or from his supporters, he is free to inform the trial Court and in such event the trial Court is free to take appropriate steps as observed by the High Court. We also direct the Trial Court to complete the trial within a period of four months from the date of the receipt of copy of this order without unnecessary adjournments. With the above observation, finding no merit for interference with the order of the High Court, the appeal is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Grant of bail to the accused in a criminal case involving serious charges under the Indian Penal Code.

Analysis:
The appeal challenged the High Court's decision to grant bail to the second respondent/accused in a case involving FIR No. 63 of 2009 under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant, the President of a political party, highlighted that the accused had a criminal background with multiple serious offenses against him. The appellant also received threatening calls from the accused warning him not to pursue the case. The charge sheet was filed against the accused, and the trial had commenced with important witnesses examined. The appellant objected to the grant of bail due to the threats received and the accused's criminal history.

The main issue for consideration was whether the High Court was justified in granting bail to the accused after imposing certain conditions. The Court noted that the accused, a sitting Member of Parliament, faced several criminal cases, with most ending in acquittal or pending trial. The Court emphasized the need to determine the accused's role in the specific case and the likelihood of fleeing jurisdiction. The accused had been in jail since 2009, and the trial had progressed with witness examinations. The State assured the trial would not be unduly prolonged. The appellant's safety concerns were addressed with adequate protection provided. The High Court had imposed strict conditions for bail, including potential re-incarceration for breaching them.

Considering all aspects, including the accused's incarceration, progress in the trial, safety measures for the appellant, and the conditions imposed by the High Court, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the bail order. The High Court's order emphasized consequences for breaching conditions and provided for immediate action in case of fresh threats to the appellant. The Trial Court was directed to complete the trial within four months without unnecessary delays. The appeal was dismissed, finding no grounds to overturn the High Court's decision.