1951 (6) TMI 25 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Refusal of bail for the accused.
2. Application of Sections 498 and 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code (Criminal P.C.).
3. Application of Section 24 of the Hyderabad High Court Act.
4. Health conditions of the accused as grounds for bail.
5. Likelihood of the accused absconding or tampering with witnesses.
6. Seriousness of the charges and potential punishment.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Refusal of Bail for the Accused:
The petitions in revision were filed by two accused against the order of the Special Judge refusing bail. The court held that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioners were guilty of the offences charged. The court emphasized that it was only forming a 'prima facie' opinion for the purposes of Section 497, Criminal P.C., and did not delve into the details at this stage.

2. Application of Sections 498 and 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code (Criminal P.C.):
The petitioners invoked Sections 498 and 561-A of the Criminal P.C. However, the court did not find it appropriate to grant bail under these provisions, considering the gravity of the charges and the circumstances of the case.

3. Application of Section 24 of the Hyderabad High Court Act:
The petitioners also invoked Section 24 of the Hyderabad High Court Act. The court considered this provision but ultimately decided against granting bail, emphasizing the severity of the charges and the need to ensure the accused's presence during the trial.

4. Health Conditions of the Accused as Grounds for Bail:
The main ground for seeking bail was the sickness of the accused. Fazl Nawaz Jung was reported to be suffering from Coronary Thrombosis or Angina Pectoris, slow beating of the heart, and anemia. The court examined medical evidence and found that the accused's condition, while serious, could be managed within the jail. The court noted that the accused were given special and better treatment analogous to that given to political prisoners. The court also recommended that the government provide more genial surroundings and amenities within the jail to help improve the accused's health.

5. Likelihood of the Accused Absconding or Tampering with Witnesses:
The prosecution strongly argued that there was a likelihood of the petitioners absconding and tampering with witnesses. The court noted that the Prime Minister, Laik Ali, had already escaped to Pakistan, and some other ministers, who were also among the accused, were reported to be in Pakistan. Two important witnesses had also fled to Pakistan. This justified the apprehension of the prosecution and weighed against granting bail.

6. Seriousness of the Charges and Potential Punishment:
The charges against the accused were of a heinous nature, involving a criminal conspiracy to drive caste Hindus out of the State by creating conditions of alarm and panic, resulting in several hundred murders, thousands of dacoities, and arson. The court emphasized that the severity of the charges and the potential punishment (death or transportation for life) made it unlikely that the accused would face the trial if released on bail. The court cited established principles that the seriousness of the charge, the nature of the evidence, and the severity of the punishment should be considered when deciding on bail applications.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petitions for bail filed by both accused. It recommended that the government provide adequate facilities and more genial surroundings within the jail to help improve the health of the accused. The court emphasized that the discretionary power to grant bail is judicial and governed by established principles, considering the seriousness of the charges, the likelihood of absconding, and the potential for tampering with witnesses.