2014 (3) TMI 1230 - SC - Indian Laws

Dismissal of bail applications of both the appellants pending trial - three murders allegedly committed inter alia by senior police officers - Delay in trial proceedings - Parity with co-accused. HELD THAT - The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though, for grant of bail, detailed examination of evidence and elaborate discussion on merits of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie conclusion why bail was being granted, particularly, when the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav and Another 2004 (3) TMI 763 - SUPREME COURT , this Court, while considering Sections 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (in short the Code ) held that, amongst other circumstances of the case, the following factors are required to be considered by the court before granting bail (a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence. (b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant. (c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. Considering the limited issue involved, there is no need to elaborately analyse, assess, the acceptability or otherwise of the prosecution version, charges levelled, witnesses examined and documents exhibited at this juncture. However, in the light of the submissions made by both the sides, on careful perusal of the role attributed to these appellants in the charge sheet filed in the Court as well as other materials and also taken note of judicial custody for nearly seven years pending trial and the rival contentions. Delay in trail proceedings - HELD THAT - It is not in dispute that in respect of abduction and killing of Sohrabuddin and Kausarbi, after prolonged hearings, the trial was transferred to Mumbai, that is, out of Gujarat on the orders of this Court. Thereafter, in respect of killing of Tulsiram Prajapati, again, on the orders of this Court dated 08.04.2013, the same was transferred to Mumbai to be heard along with the trial relating to killing of Sohrabuddin and Kausarbi. Taking note of these aspects including various orders of this Court, it cannot be claimed that the investigating agency was responsible for the delay. Parity with co-accused - HELD THAT - A perusal of the reason(s) for grant of bail or anticipatory bail shows that some of the accused were granted bail by the trial court and some by the High Court and by this Court. Apart from pointing out various orders, learned counsel for the appellants has brought to notice the order passed by this Court in Naresh Vishnu Chauhan vs. State of Gujarat Anr. 2012 (10) TMI 1277 - SUPREME COURT wherein Naresh Vishnu Chauhan, who was one of the coaccused, at the relevant time posted as sub-Inspector of Police and was attached to the Anti-Terrorist Squad, Ahmedabad. In spite of the fact that the counsel for the State has pointed out that the case against the said person (A-13) is not only confined to Section 201 IPC but also includes Section 302 read with Section 120B IPC, this Court, taking note of the fact that he was in jail for over five years and three months, directed to release him on bail forthwith. Likewise, another co-accused, viz., Vijay Arjunbhai Rathod, who was in custody in connection with the encounter case and whose name was included in the list of the accused, was released on bail by this Court in Vijay Arjunbhai Rathod vs. CBI Anr. 2012 (3) TMI 731 - SC ORDER . It is directed that all the materials pertaining to these cases which are lying in the original Court at Gujarat as well as the records relating to the same under the custody of the High Court of Gujarat, if any, be transferred to the Special Court, CBI, Mumbai within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. After receipt of all the required materials, the Special Court, CBI at Mumbai have to get the relevant documents alone translated within a period of three months thereafter. Both the appellants have made out a case for bail on executing a bond with two solvent sureties, each in a sum of Rs 1 lakh to the satisfaction of the Special Judge, CBI, Mumbai on the fulfilment of conditions imposed - the appellants are ordered to be released on bail subject to the conditions mentioned - bail application allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Grant of bail pending trial.
2. Delay in trial proceedings.
3. Parity with co-accused.
4. Risk of influencing witnesses.
5. Conditions for bail.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Grant of Bail Pending Trial:
The appeals were directed against the High Court's dismissal of bail applications for the appellants, who were in custody for nearly seven years pending trial. The Supreme Court emphasized the necessity of exercising discretion judiciously when granting bail in non-bailable offences, considering the nature of accusation, severity of punishment, and the nature of supporting evidence. The Court noted that the appellants had been in custody for an extended period without the trial being completed, and the charges had not yet been framed.

2. Delay in Trial Proceedings:
The Court acknowledged the significant delay in the trial, noting that the case had been transferred from Gujarat to Mumbai on the orders of the Supreme Court. The voluminous documents and the need for translation from Gujarati to Marathi contributed to the delay. The Court highlighted that the completion of the trial could not be presumed within a reasonable period due to these factors.

3. Parity with Co-Accused:
The appellants argued for bail on the ground of parity, pointing out that several co-accused had been granted bail or anticipatory bail by various courts, including the Supreme Court. The Court reviewed the details of the co-accused who were granted bail and noted that the appellants had similar circumstances, justifying their claim for bail on the ground of parity.

4. Risk of Influencing Witnesses:
The prosecution, represented by the Additional Solicitor General, argued that the appellants, being police officers, might influence witnesses if released on bail. The Court considered this argument but noted that the appellants had been in custody for nearly seven years, and the trial's completion was not foreseeable in the near future. The Court also directed measures to mitigate the risk of influencing witnesses.

5. Conditions for Bail:
The Supreme Court granted bail to the appellants with specific conditions to ensure they do not influence witnesses or abscond. These conditions included:
- Executing a bond with two solvent sureties, each in a sum of Rs 1 lakh.
- Not making any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the case facts.
- Remaining present before the court on hearing dates or providing intimation for unavoidable absence.
- Surrendering their passports or supporting the fact of non-possession with an affidavit.
- Reporting to the Special Judge, CBI Mumbai, on alternate working days.
- Allowing the CBI to apply for modification or recalling the bail order if conditions are violated.

The appeals were disposed of with these directions, and the appellants were ordered to be released on bail subject to the mentioned conditions.