1987 (12) TMI 205 - HC - Indian Laws

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the Additional Sessions Judge's order granting bail.
2. Nature and seriousness of the offense.
3. Likelihood of the accused absconding.
4. Possibility of tampering with evidence.
5. Consideration of the accused being a woman and the health of a minor child.
6. Application of Section 437(1) and 437(6) of the Cr.P.C.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Additional Sessions Judge's order granting bail:
The petitioner challenged the order dated 7th November 1987, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, which granted bail to the respondents. The petitioner argued that the order was improper and incorrect, and the High Court stayed the order pending admission. The High Court emphasized that this was not an application for cancellation of bail but a challenge to the order granting bail on the grounds of impropriety and injustice.

2. Nature and seriousness of the offense:
The respondents were involved in smuggling a large quantity of gold into India, which is considered an economic offense. The court noted that such offenses endanger the economy of the country. The involvement of the respondents was evident from the material on record, including the recovery of gold bars and their statements.

3. Likelihood of the accused absconding:
The court highlighted that foreign nationals involved in similar offenses often abscond after obtaining bail. The Customs Department's affidavit showed that out of 97 foreign nationals arrested for similar offenses, 84 absconded after being granted bail. The court found a high probability that the respondents would abscond if released on bail, given the large-scale smuggling involved and the absconding of co-accused Mr. & Mrs. Maturgo.

4. Possibility of tampering with evidence:
The court considered the possibility of the accused tampering with evidence. The respondents had previously admitted to smuggling gold and had retracted their statements. However, the court noted that this was not the stage to assess the admissibility or value of the evidence but to determine the likelihood of the accused being available for trial.

5. Consideration of the accused being a woman and the health of a minor child:
Respondent No. 2 argued for bail under the first proviso to Section 437(1) of the Cr.P.C., which allows for bail to women, minors, or the infirm. The court, however, stated that all other considerations must be weighed, and the mere fact of being a woman does not obligate the court to grant bail. The court also addressed the health concerns of the minor child, noting that the child had been examined by a pediatrician and found to be receiving proper treatment while in custody.

6. Application of Section 437(1) and 437(6) of the Cr.P.C.:
The court examined the application of Section 437(1) and 437(6) of the Cr.P.C., which pertains to the release of accused on bail if the trial is not concluded within 60 days from the first date fixed for taking evidence. The court agreed with the Delhi High Court's interpretation that the 60-day period starts from the date after the accused is charge-sheeted and the prosecution is given notice for recording evidence.

Conclusion:
The High Court quashed and set aside the order of the Additional Sessions Judge granting bail to the respondents. It directed the trial court to conduct and complete the trial with utmost dispatch and on a day-to-day basis, considering the prolonged custody of the accused and the minor child. The court emphasized the importance of ensuring the accused's availability for trial, especially in cases involving serious economic offenses like smuggling.

← Previous Next →