9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Successive Bail Application 2. Role of the Applicant-Accused 3. CBI Investigation and Charge Sheet 4. Judicial Precedents and Hierarchical Considerations 5. Length of Detention and Personal Liberty Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Successive Bail Application: The present application was filed by the applicant-original accused under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for granting regular bail, which is a successive bail application after Criminal Misc. Application No. 8326 of 2009 was rejected. The court emphasized that no change of circumstances had been pointed out by the learned advocate for the applicant except the fact that the investigating agency is now the CBI, which has a different conclusion in the chargesheet. The court stated that considering the role and prima facie case against the applicant, the earlier application was rejected, and there has been no material change in the fact-situation to warrant a different decision. 2. Role of the Applicant-Accused: The applicant-accused was charged with multiple offences under the Indian Penal Code. The learned advocate for the applicant argued that the applicant was initially a witness and later arraigned as an accused. The CBI's chargesheet stated that the applicant did not have any active role and there was no meeting of mind with the main conspirators, leading to his removal from the list of accused. However, the court noted that once a person is arraigned as an accused by a High Court order, sustained by the Apex Court, the CBI could not unilaterally remove the name without following the appropriate procedure. The court emphasized that the applicant's presence at the scene of the offence and the role attributed to him were significant factors in denying bail. 3. CBI Investigation and Charge Sheet: The CBI's investigation concluded that the applicant-accused was not involved in the conspiracy, as there was no meeting of mind with the main conspirators. The learned advocate for the applicant argued that this finding should lead to bail. However, the court held that the CBI, as an investigating agency, could not make such conclusive remarks in the chargesheet once the matter was before the court. The appropriate procedure would have been to file a report before the competent court. The court also pointed out that the CBI's remarks were not sufficient to change the earlier decision to deny bail. 4. Judicial Precedents and Hierarchical Considerations: The court referred to several judicial precedents, including the Hon'ble Apex Court's observations in the cases of N.K. Amin v. State of Gujarat and Dinesh M.N. v. State of Gujarat, which emphasized that the role of the accused should not be bifurcated minutely. The court also highlighted that the order of the High Court, by which the applicant was arraigned as an accused, had merged with the order of the Apex Court. Therefore, the submissions made by the learned advocate for the applicant could not be accepted, as the High Court's order had merged with the Apex Court's order, and the court could not take a different view. 5. Length of Detention and Personal Liberty: The learned advocate for the applicant argued that the applicant had been in jail for a long period and that the maximum punishment for his alleged role could be three years. The court referred to the Hon'ble Apex Court's observations in the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, which stated that personal liberty could be deprived in accordance with the procedure established by law. The court noted that the applicant's detention was authorized by law and that there was no change in the material fact-situation to warrant bail. The court also emphasized that the applicant's case could not be considered differently from other co-accused who were present at the scene of the offence. Conclusion: The court concluded that there was no material change in the fact-situation or additional grounds to entertain the present application for bail. The application was rejected, and the rule was discharged.
|
