2012 (10) TMI 1273 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of bail for offences u/s 302, 201, and 120-B of IPC and u/s 25(1)(b) and 27 of the Arms Act.
2. Allegations of conspiracy and involvement in the murder of an RTI activist.
3. Considerations for granting bail in non-bailable offences.
4. High Court's direction for further investigation by CBI.

Summary:

Issue 1: Rejection of Bail
The appellant, accused No. 4, challenged the High Court of Gujarat's order rejecting his bail application for offences u/s 302, 201, and 120-B of the IPC and u/s 25(1)(b) and 27 of the Arms Act. The appellant argued that his name was not mentioned in the FIR, he had no nexus with the crime, and the allegations were vague and aimed at tarnishing his public image. Despite these contentions, the trial judge and subsequently the High Court declined to grant bail.

Issue 2: Allegations of Conspiracy
The prosecution alleged that the appellant conspired with other accused to murder the deceased, an RTI activist, due to his exposure of illegal activities. The appellant was accused of financing the contract killer and providing fake SIM cards. The High Court found prima facie evidence of conspiracy based on the frequent visits of accused No. 1 to the appellant's office and a telephonic conversation with the absconding sharp-shooter.

Issue 3: Considerations for Granting Bail
The Supreme Court referred to established principles for granting bail in non-bailable offences, emphasizing the nature and seriousness of the offence, character of the evidence, and potential for the accused to tamper with evidence. The Court cited precedents that highlight the need for a prima facie case and reasonable grounds for believing the prosecution's case.

Issue 4: High Court's Direction for Further Investigation by CBI
The High Court of Gujarat expressed dissatisfaction with the initial investigation, describing it as perfunctory and influenced by a high-ranking police officer. It ordered a comprehensive investigation by the CBI, emphasizing the need for an independent probe to inspire public confidence. The Supreme Court noted this development and decided that it would be inappropriate to grant bail while the CBI investigation is pending. The appellant was granted liberty to file a fresh bail application if the High Court's order is annulled or after the CBI submits its report.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal, emphasizing that the direction for a CBI investigation necessitates withholding bail at this stage. The appellant retains the right to seek bail post-investigation or if the High Court's order is overturned.