2017 (4) TMI 1638 - SC - Indian Laws

Rejection of Bail application - Extortion of money and property - HELD THAT - After investigation final report Under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed against the Appellant and four other persons on 19th October 2016. The case against the Appellant is almost similar to that of other co-accused who have been enlarged on bail. The Accused has been in custody for the past six and half months. No criminal antecedents have been reported against the Appellant. It is just and proper to enlarge the Appellant on bail subject to the conditions imposed - bail application allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to rejection of bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court granted leave in a case where the Appellant challenged the order of the High Court rejecting his bail application. The Appellant was arrested in connection with a criminal case involving serious charges under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The Appellant contended that the complaint against him was motivated to extort money and property, and he had been falsely implicated. The Appellant had been in custody for over six months and expressed willingness to comply with any bail conditions. The Respondent sought to justify the rejection of bail.

After investigation, a final report was filed against the Appellant and others, with the case being similar to that of co-accused who had been granted bail. Notably, the Appellant had no criminal antecedents. The Court found it appropriate to grant bail to the Appellant with specific conditions. The Appellant was directed not to stay in Chhattisgarh during the case's pendency but in Patna, with permission to attend court proceedings in Chhattisgarh. Additionally, the Appellant had to report to the Senior Superintendent of Police in Patna weekly and comply with other conditions, including not tampering with evidence or pressurizing witnesses. The Appellant was required to execute a personal bond with sureties for bail.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, thereby granting bail to the Appellant with the specified conditions, considering the circumstances of the case and the Appellant's lack of criminal history.