9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 2023 - SC - Indian LawsSeeking grant of regular bail - conspiracy to systematically upturn the establishment to cause secession of J K from the Union of India - framing of charges - accused guilty of offence - Sections 120B, 121 and 121A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 13, 16, 17, 18, 20, 38, 39 and 40 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - HELD THAT - A priori, the exercise to be undertaken by the Court at this stage-of giving reasons for grant or non-grant of bail-is markedly different from discussing merits or demerits of the evidence. The elaborate exa mination or dissection of the evidence is not required to be done at this stage. The Court is merely expected to record a finding on the basis of broad probabilities regarding the involvement of the Accused in the commission of the stated offence or otherwise. From the analysis of the impugned judgment, it appears that the High Court has ventured into an area of examining the merits and demerits of the evidence. For, it noted that the evidence in the form of statements of witnesses Under Section 161 are not admissible. Further, the documents pressed into service by the Investigating Agency were not admissible in evidence. Once charges are framed, it would be safe to assume that a very strong suspicion was founded upon the materials before the Court, which prompted the Court to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged against the accused, to justify the framing of charge. In that situation, the Accused may have to undertake an arduous task to satisfy the court that despite the framing of charge, the materials presented along with the charge-sheet (report Under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure), do not make out reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against him is prima facie true. Similar opinion is required to be formed by the Court whilst considering the prayer for bail, made after filing of the first report made Under Section 173 of the Code, as in the present case. The High Court ought to have taken into account the totality of the materials/evidences which depicted the involvement of the Respondent in the commission of the stated offences and being a member of a larger conspiracy, besides the offence Under Section 17 for raising funds for terrorist activities - the Court may release such Accused on bail only if it is of the opinion, on perusal of the case diary and/or the report made Under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is prima facie true. Conversely, if in the opinion of the Court, there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is prima facie true, the question of granting bail would not arise as the bar under the first part of the proviso of no bail in such cases would operate. There are force in the argument of the Appellant that the High Court, in the present case, adopted an inappropriate approach whilst considering the prayer for grant of bail. The High Court ought to have taken into account the totality of the material and evidence on record as it is and ought not to have discarded it as being inadmissible. The High Court clearly overlooked the settled legal position that, at the stage of considering the prayer for bail, it is not necessary to weigh the material, but only form opinion on the basis of the material before it on broad probabilities. The Court is expected to apply its mind to ascertain whether the accusations against the Accused are prima face true - it is deemed proper to reverse the order passed by the High Court granting bail to the Respondent. The impugned judgment and order is set aside - the order passed by the Designated Court rejecting the application for grant of bail made by the Respondent herein, is affirmed.
Issues Involved:
1. Serious allegations of involvement in unlawful acts and terror funding. 2. Bail application and its rejection by the District and Sessions Judge, Special Court (NIA), New Delhi. 3. Reversal of bail rejection by the High Court of Delhi. 4. Analysis of the material on record and the prima facie case against the accused. 5. Health grounds for bail. 6. Statements and documents presented by the prosecution. 7. The role and influence of the accused. 8. Provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. 9. The High Court's approach and the Supreme Court's review. Detailed Analysis: 1. Serious Allegations of Involvement in Unlawful Acts and Terror Funding: The Designated Court noted serious allegations against the Respondent (Accused No. 10) for being involved in unlawful acts and terror funding in conspiracy with other accused persons. The Respondent was accused of acting as a conduit for transferring funds from terrorist organizations and entities like ISI, Pakistan High Commission, and a source in Dubai to Hurriyat leaders and other secessionists, aiding in waging war against the Government of India. 2. Bail Application and its Rejection by the District and Sessions Judge, Special Court (NIA), New Delhi: The Respondent filed a bail application, which was rejected by the Special Court on 8th June 2018, citing the serious nature of allegations and the involvement of the accused in terror funding and secessionist activities. 3. Reversal of Bail Rejection by the High Court of Delhi: The High Court of Delhi reversed the Special Court’s decision and granted bail to the Respondent on 13th September 2018, subject to certain conditions. The High Court's decision was based on its analysis of the material on record and the health condition of the Respondent. 4. Analysis of the Material on Record and the Prima Facie Case Against the Accused: The Designated Court analyzed various statements and documents, including those of witnesses and financial records, which prima facie indicated that the businesses of the Respondent were fronts for routing funds received from abroad and terrorist organizations. The court noted that the balance sheets of the Respondent’s companies were signed without supporting documents and that large sums of money were received from unknown sources. 5. Health Grounds for Bail: The Respondent’s plea for bail on health grounds was considered and rejected by the Special Court, which noted that the Respondent was provided with adequate medical treatment as and when required, including treatment at AIIMS and other government hospitals. 6. Statements and Documents Presented by the Prosecution: The prosecution presented several documents and statements, including those of protected witnesses, which indicated the involvement of the Respondent in terror funding. The High Court, however, excluded the statements recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. from consideration, as they were not provided to the Respondent. 7. The Role and Influence of the Accused: The Special Court noted that the Respondent was an influential businessman with significant clout in the valley, and there was a likelihood of him influencing or intimidating witnesses if released on bail. 8. Provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967: The case involved special provisions under Section 43D of the 1967 Act, which restricts the granting of bail for offenses under Chapters IV and VI of the Act unless the court is satisfied that the accusations are not prima facie true. 9. The High Court's Approach and the Supreme Court's Review: The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for conducting a mini-trial and questioning the genuineness of the documents relied upon by the Investigating Agency. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court adopted a curious approach in finding fault with the Investigating Agency for not naming any official from the High Commission of Pakistan as accused or recording their statements as witnesses. The Supreme Court emphasized that at the stage of considering bail, the court must look at the totality of the material gathered by the Investigating Agency and not discard it on the ground of being inadmissible. Conclusion: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order granting bail to the Respondent and affirmed the Special Court’s decision rejecting the bail application. The Supreme Court held that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against the Respondent were prima facie true, and the Respondent was not entitled to bail.
|
