2020 (10) TMI 1284 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of regular bail - on being enlarged on interim bail, the applicant filed regular bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. - learned A.S.G.I. in rebuttal submits that the statement of P.W.-3 cannot be relied upon; P.W.-3 was summoned only to verify the hotel guest register; he further submits that P.W.-3 could not tell the exact date of C.B.I. raid - HELD THAT - Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. Let the applicant- Ranveer Singh @ Ranbir Singh involved in 120B I.P.C. and Section 7, 7A 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. One lac with two sureties (one should be of his family members) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions imposed. Application allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Second bail application, changed circumstances, reliance on prosecution witnesses' testimony, nature of accusation, severity of punishment, supporting evidence, tampering of witnesses, prima facie satisfaction, conditions for bail, compliance with Covid-19 directives.

The judgment pertains to the consideration of a second bail application by the High Court. The applicant's first bail application was previously rejected. The applicant was granted interim bail due to the pandemic, and this interim bail was extended until a specified date. The applicant filed a regular bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., which was rejected by a coordinate Bench. The current bail application was placed before the Bench nominated by the Chief Justice. The applicant's counsel argued that changed circumstances arose during the trial, specifically related to the testimony of a prosecution witness, P.W.-3, which contradicted the C.B.I.'s case against the applicant. The applicant was portrayed as innocent and falsely implicated. The prosecution, represented by the learned A.S.G.I., countered that P.W.-3's statement was unreliable and could not confirm crucial details. Despite opposition from the prosecution, the Court considered the nature of the accusation, potential punishment, supporting evidence, witness tampering concerns, and prima facie satisfaction to grant bail to the applicant.

The Court, without expressing any opinion on the case's merits, decided to release the applicant on bail. The applicant, involved in offenses under 120B I.P.C. and sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act, was granted bail upon furnishing a personal bond and sureties. The Court imposed specific conditions for bail, including the applicant's presence during trial proceedings, restrictions on seeking adjournments, and consequences for misuse of bail. Additionally, the Court directed compliance with Covid-19 related directives, allowing for the release of accused-applicants who faced difficulties arranging sureties due to lockdown restrictions. The judgment highlights the importance of balancing legal considerations with practical challenges, such as those posed by the pandemic, in the administration of justice.