2024 (9) TMI 687 - SCH - Indian Laws

Dismissal of application of the appellant seeking bail - giving illegal gratification to the BSF personnel - offence punishable under Sections109,120B read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections-7,9,11,12,13(2),13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - HELD THAT - There are serious allegations against the appellant-accused, however he is in custody since 11.08.2022 (approximately two years till today) and the trial is at the stage of submission of documents of the charge-sheet under Section-207 of the Cr.P.C. It also appears that the papers of the charge-sheet are very voluminous and some of them are in Bengali language, for which, the Special Court has directed the respondent-CBI to get them translated. The learned ASG, Mr. S.V. Raju, has assured this Court that all the documents shall be translated at the earliest, preferably within 45 days from today. However, from the voluminous record of the charge-sheet, it appears that the trial will take long time. It is also not disputed that the other co-accused, more particularly, the accused no.2 Md. Enamul Haque, has been released on bail by this Court vide Order dated 24.01.2022. The appellant shall be released on bail subject to the fulfilment of conditions imposed - bail application allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Bail application dismissed by High Court in connection with a corruption case.
2. Grounds for seeking bail by the appellant-accused.
3. Arguments presented by the appellant's counsel regarding bail.
4. Respondent's contentions opposing bail for the appellant.
5. Court's evaluation of the case and decision to grant bail with specific conditions.

Detailed Analysis:
The judgment delivered by the Supreme Court involved the appellant-accused challenging the High Court's decision to dismiss their bail application in a corruption case. The appellant was seeking bail in connection with a Special CBI Case involving offenses under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The appellant's senior counsel argued that out of the total 12 accused in the case, all had been granted bail except the appellant. The counsel highlighted the delay in translation of Bengali documents, the voluminous charge-sheet, and the appellant's cooperation with the trial court as grounds for bail.

The respondent, represented by the ASG, vehemently opposed the bail, asserting that the appellant, as the President of the District Committee of a political party, was highly influential and had threatened key individuals involved in the case. The respondent contended that the appellant played a significant role in the alleged offenses and was attempting to delay the trial proceedings under the guise of document translation issues.

After considering the arguments from both sides and reviewing the case documents, the Court acknowledged the serious allegations against the appellant but noted that the appellant had been in custody for approximately two years. The Court observed that the trial was at an early stage, with voluminous documents, some in Bengali, requiring translation. Notably, one of the co-accused had already been granted bail by the Court. Consequently, the Court decided to allow the appeal and granted bail to the appellant, subject to specific conditions imposed by the Trial Court.

The conditions for bail included the appellant's cooperation with the trial, prohibition from seeking unnecessary adjournments, surrendering the passport, refraining from threatening or influencing witnesses, and not obstructing the trial proceedings. The Court emphasized that the respondent-CBI could file for bail cancellation if the appellant violated any of the imposed conditions. The judgment concluded by allowing the appeal and closing any pending applications in the matter.