9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (2) TMI 517 - SC - Indian LawsBail application filed by the Appellant under Section 439 Cr.P.C. and Section 20 (8) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 rejected - Held that - Though the Appellant is involved in serious offences and has absconded for a period of 10 years before he was arrested in 2004, we see no reason to confine him to jail as he has already suffered more than 12 years in custody and the trial may not be completed in the near future. Taking note of the above, we grant relief of bail to the Appellant subject to the following conditions a. The Appellant will furnish a bail bond in the sum of ₹ 1 lakh (One Lakh only) with one surety for a similar amount. b. The Appellant will reside at Porbandar and report daily to the City B Division Police Station, Porbandar at 6 00 PM. He shall not leave the territory of Porbandar. c. If the Appellant is required to attend any Court outside Porbandar the same may be done through video conferencing to be organized by the State. If video conferencing cannot be arranged the Appellant will be produced before any court, if necessary, through Escort by the Police. d.The Passport of the Appellant shall be surrendered before the Designated Court. e. The Appellant shall not indulge in tampering of evidence and influencing of witnesses. f. The State is at liberty to move for cancellation of bail, if the Appellant is found to be tampering with the evidence or causing hindrance to the progress of the trial.
Issues:
1. Bail application rejection by Designated Court under TADA Act. 2. Requirement of prior approval under Section 20A(1) of TADA Act for FIR registration. 3. Delay in trial completion and lengthy incarceration of the accused. 4. Consideration of confessional statement under TADA Act. 5. Right to speedy trial and bail for accused in prolonged custody. 6. Grant of bail with conditions by Supreme Court. Issue 1: Bail application rejection by Designated Court under TADA Act The Supreme Court heard an appeal against the Designated Court's rejection of a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. and Section 20(8) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA). The Designated Court denied bail based on prima facie evidence of the appellant's involvement in serious TADA offenses, absconding history, and potential tampering with evidence and witnesses. Issue 2: Requirement of prior approval under Section 20A(1) of TADA Act for FIR registration The appellant argued that the proceedings were flawed due to the lack of prior approval from the District Superintendent of Police under Section 20A(1) of the TADA Act before registering the FIR. The Supreme Court examined the necessity of this approval, citing previous cases where non-compliance led to the acquittal of accused individuals under the Act. Issue 3: Delay in trial completion and lengthy incarceration of the accused The appellant, who had been in custody for over 12 years, requested bail due to the slow progress of the trial, with only 25 out of 192 witnesses examined. The Supreme Court acknowledged the right to a speedy trial and the violation of the accused's constitutional rights under Article 21, granting bail considering the prolonged incarceration and trial delays. Issue 4: Consideration of confessional statement under TADA Act Although a confessional statement was recorded under Section 15 of TADA, the Supreme Court could not consider it due to the violation of Section 20A(1) of the TADA Act, emphasizing the importance of procedural compliance in such cases. Issue 5: Right to speedy trial and bail for accused in prolonged custody The Supreme Court reiterated the importance of a speedy trial, citing previous judgments where accused individuals were granted bail due to extended incarceration and trial delays, even in cases under TADA. Issue 6: Grant of bail with conditions by Supreme Court After considering all submissions, the Supreme Court granted bail to the appellant based on various factors, including the lack of prior approval, lengthy incarceration, trial delays, and the right to a speedy trial. Bail was granted with specific conditions to ensure the appellant's compliance and prevent interference with the trial proceedings. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the critical legal issues addressed by the Supreme Court in the context of the bail application and procedural requirements under the TADA Act.
|
