9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (1) TMI 905X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o contended that she had been granted interim bail for a period of 2 months and she has not exploited the liberty granted to him. The assertion is also made by the petitioner that her daughter is suffering from separation and the presence of the petitioner is necessary for her normal development as a human being. 4. The petitioner had filed another bail application being Bail Appl. No.688/2005 which was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh application at a later stage as the prosecution had cited 87 witnesses and none of the witnesses had been examined till that time. 5. It is pleaded on behalf of petitioner that a chargesheet was filed on 6th December, 2003 and charges were framed by order dated 2nd March, 2005 and case is progressing at a snail pace despite the directions passed by this Court on 12th June, 2006. 6. On 12th July, 2006 in the Bail Appl.No.541/2006 while disposing it, it was held that the petitioner and her counsel shall cooperate with the investigation and on her doing so the trial Court shall expedite the hearing and shall endeavor to complete the evidence within nine months. The petitioner was also given liberty to move the bail application again and w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s sufficient evidence against the petitioner. 12. In Ashok Soloman (Supra) relied on by the petitioner where the prosecution was for the offence under Section 20, 21 29 of Narcotics Drugs Psychotropic Substances Act, the accused was released on bail as it was held that there was no further justification in incarcerating the accused by denying him bail as he had already been in custody for more than 2 years and the trial of the accused had made no headway and there was no material to show as to how much time the conclusion of the trial was likely to take. In the case of Shanta Kumar (Supra) the accused was facing trial for an offence under Section 302 of IPC and not a single witness had been examined for two years after framing of charges and on that ground the bail was granted to the accused considering that the State had been oblivious to its obligation. In Satya Brat Gain (Supra) the accused was an undertrial prisoner for five years and there had not been any substantial progress nor there was any likelihood of the progress in future and considering the dilatory progress of the proceedings against the accused, incarceration of the accused for further period was not permitt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in case of non bailable offenses under Section 498A, 304B and 34 of Indian Penal Code. The accused in the said case was a young girl of 20 years and it was held that she is to be treated with compassion and mercy keeping in view spirit of proviso to Section 437(1) Code of Criminal Procedure and anticipatory bail was granted to her. 15. The decision relied on behalf of the petitioner are apparently distinguishable. A decision is only an authority for what it actually decides. What is of the essence in a decision is its ratio and not every observation found therein nor what logically follows from the various observations made in it. The ratio of any decision must be understood in the background of the facts of that case. It has been said long time ago that a case is only an authority for what it actually decides, and not what logically follows from it. It is well settled that a little difference in facts or additional facts may make a lot of difference in the precedential value of a decision. In P.S.Rao Vs State, JT 2002 (3) SC 1, the Supreme Court had held as under: . There is always a peril in treating the words of judgment as though they are words in a legislative enactmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ointed out where the dead body was burnt and bushes around the place were also found to be burnt and some of the articles of the deceased were also found at that place. Regarding petitioner it is contended that she also pointed out watch and shoes of the deceased and the credit cards of the deceased were recovered from the petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondent also pointed out that the petitioner had even stolen the credit cards of her father which were later on paid by her father. Regarding the delay in trial it is contended that the charges were framed on 2nd March, 2005 and before framing of charges four adjournments were sought. It is further contended that the trial was directed to be completed within nine months subject to the petitioner and her counsel cooperating with the counsels. According to him on 10 dates the matter was adjourned at the instance of the accused. Regarding reliance of petitioner‟s counsel under Article 21 of the Constitution it is contended that the speedy trial as claimed by the petitioner does not mean that the trial has to be concluded within a particular period. According to the learned counsel merely because the trial has not been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ental to a fair trial and the bail application was rejected. The Apex Court had set aside the bail granted by a High Court on the ground of period of incarceration already undergone and unlikelihood of trial concluding in the near future in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar (Supra). It was held that the mere fact that the accused has undergone certain period of incarceration by itself would not entitle the accused to be enlarged on bail nor the fact that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future either by itself or coupled with the period of incarceration would be sufficient for enlarging the accused on bail when the gravity of the offence alleged is severe. In Rajesh Ranjan Yadav (Supra) the Apex Court had reiterated that grant of bail depends on facts and circumstances of each case and no absolute rule can be culled that the bail must be granted on account of long period of imprisonment. Considering the ramification of Article 21 the Apex Court had held that it is of great importance because it enshrines the fundamental right of individual liberty but at the same time a balance has to be struck between the right to individual liberty and the interest of society. The Supreme Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommitted, position and status of the accused with reference to the victim and the witnesses and likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and tampering with witnesses etc. It was held that the bail is at the most a matter of procedural privilege and not an accrued right until it is granted. Consequently, it was held that the accused would not be entitled to bail merely being a woman on account of proviso to Section 437(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code. It was further held that the cause of public justice also has to be zealously guarded compared to the rights of a criminal defendant. Interest of society and also cause of public justice has also to be kept in mind while granting or refusing bail. Consequently, if offence is of such a nature which affects the vital interest of the society and has adverse effect on the social and family life, in such matters the issue is to be considered with reference to them and one of the consideration which has to be weighed for granting or refusing bail is a nature of the offence and its heinousness. 24. Learned counsel for the parties argued at length regarding the compliance or non compliance of order dated 12th July, 2006 in Bail Appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l court, it is apparent that the progress has been made and the witnesses have been examined. It also cannot be inferred that the petitioner and her counsel fully cooperated in terms of order dated 12th July, 2006. 25. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner being a woman is entitled for bail under proviso to Section 437 of the Code of Civil Procedure which is a beneficial legislation for women. The judgments relied on by the petitioner do not lay down any absolute and unconditional rule that bail should be granted if the accused is a woman. Overriding consideration in granting bail are nature and gravity of circumstances in which the offense is committed, possession and status of the accused with reference to the victim and the witnesses and likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and tempering with the witnesses etc. Consequently, it will not be appropriate to contend that the petitioner is entitled for a bail merely because she is a woman under proviso to Section 437(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Though the learned counsel for the respondent has highlighted the evidence which has already been led and has contended that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
