2016 (5) TMI 1593 - SC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of bail - Framing of charges against the accused Appellant Under Sections 10, 13, 17, 18, 18A, 18B, 20, 21, 38, 39 and 40(2) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, amended 2008 and Sections 387, 419, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 - HELD THAT - The accused Appellant has been in custody since April, 2011 i.e. for over five years. The trial is yet to commence inasmuch as the learned State Counsel has submitted that the 9th of May, 2016 is the first date fixed for the trial. There are over 200 witnesses proposed to be examined. The accused Appellant is a lady. She has also been acquitted of similar charges leveled against her in other cases. Taking into account all the aforesaid facts we are of the view that the accused Appellant should be admitted to bail. We accordingly direct that the accused Appellant Angela Harish Sontakke be released on bail by the learned trial Court in connection with Sessions Case No. 655 of 2011 arising out of CR No. 19/11, PS, ATS Kalachowki, Mumbai. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues: Bail application; Seriousness of charges; Period of custody; Delay in trial commencement; Number of witnesses; Previous acquittal; Gender of the accused.

Bail Application:
The Supreme Court granted leave and heard the Counsel for the parties. The accused was facing serious charges under various sections of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Despite the seriousness of the charges, the court considered factors such as the period of custody, the expected trial duration, and other relevant facts.

Seriousness of Charges:
The accused had been in custody for over five years since April 2011. The trial had not yet started, with the first trial date set for May 9, 2016. More than 200 witnesses were proposed to be examined. The accused, a lady, had been acquitted of similar charges in other cases. Considering these circumstances, the court decided that the accused should be granted bail.

Period of Custody and Delay in Trial Commencement:
The accused had been in custody for a significant period without the trial commencing. The court noted the delay in starting the trial and took it into account while deciding on the bail application.

Number of Witnesses:
The large number of witnesses proposed to be examined in the trial was a factor considered by the court in granting bail to the accused.

Previous Acquittal and Gender of the Accused:
The fact that the accused had been acquitted of similar charges in other cases and that she was a lady were additional factors that influenced the court's decision to grant bail. The court directed the trial court to impose appropriate conditions for the accused's release on bail to ensure her availability for trial.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, directed the release of the accused on bail in connection with the specified case, and set aside the High Court's order.