9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 1230X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 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 tran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ditions imposed - the appellants are ordered to be released on bail subject to the conditions mentioned - bail application allowed. - P. Sathasivam CJI, Ranjan Gogoi And N.V. Ramana), JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. R.C. Kohli, Adv. Ms. Praveena Gautam, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. Subramonium Prasad, Adv. JUDGMENT P. SATHASIVAM, CJI. 1) Leave granted in both the appeals. 2) These appeals are directed against the orders dated 20.11.2013 and 10.07.2013 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Bail Application Nos. 2002 and 1713 of 2012 respectively, whereby the High Court dismissed the bail applications of both the appellants pending trial. 3) The appellant - Sanghian Pandian Rajkumar (Accused No. 2), an IPS Officer, is one of the accused persons in Special Case No. 5 of 2010 (RC BS1/S/2010/0004-Mumbai dated 01.02.2010), who was charge-sheeted, inter alia, for the offences punishable under Section 120B read with Sections 302, 364, 365, 368, 193, 197, 342, 420, 384, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC ) and Sections 25(1B)(a) and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and he was arrested on 24.04.2007 and since then is in custody. 4) The other appellant - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he stressed on the fact that there are hundreds of witnesses to be examined and voluminous documents exhibited in the charge-sheet, it would not be possible to complete the trial in the near future. 8) Though Mr. Sushil Karanjkar, learned counsel for the appellant - Balkrishan Rajendraprasad Chaubey (A-6) adopted the arguments made by Mr. U.U. Lalit, learned senior counsel, he also submitted that A-6, being a subInspector, was present in the company of certain officers and there is no allegation against him having fired at the deceased. He also pointed out that even if the Court accepts the prosecution story that he was present at the place of firing along with the other police officers, there is no specific role attributed to him. In addition to the same, he also pointed out that the appellant (A-6) is in judicial custody without trial for almost seven years. 9) On the other hand, Ms. Indira Jaising, learned Additional Solicitor General, by taking us through the relevant materials referred to in the charge-sheet and presented in the court, submitted that inasmuch as both the appellants were police officers, there is every likelihood of influencing the witnesses. Learned ASG also s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... witnesses examined and documents exhibited at this juncture. However, in the light of the submissions made by both the sides, we have carefully perused 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. 13) Coming to the delay, 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. 14) Mr. U.U. Lalit, learned senior counsel for Sanghian Pandian Rajkumar (A-2) asserted that not even a single person implicated him in the commission of offences as alleged by the prosecution. On going through the allegations p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... K. Amin (accused No. 12), by Bombay High Court in Criminal Bail Application No. 1770/2012. (d) N.V. Chauhan (accused No. 13), by Hon ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 1627/2011, by order dated 19/10/2012. (e) V.A. Rathod (accused No. 14) by Hon ble Supreme Court, in SLP (Crl.) No. 8318/2011, by order dated 02/03/2012. (f) Amitbhai Shah (accused No. 16), by Gujarat High Court, in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1770/2012, which order has been confirmed by the Apex Court, by rejecting the SLP (Crl.) filed by CBI for cancellation of said bail. (B) Anticipatory bail: (a) Ajay Patel (accused No. 17), by Gujarat High court, which order came to be continued by way of interim order passed by the Apex Court. (b) Yashpal Chudasama (accused No. 18), by Gujarat High Court, which order came to be continued by way of interim order passed by the Apex Court. (c) Vimal Pattani (accused No. 20) by Special Judge, CBI, Greater Mumbai (Sessions) on 05/07/2013 in Anticipatory bail Application No. 773/2013. (d) Gulabchand H. Kataria (accused No. 21), by Special Judge, CBI, Greater Mumbai (Sessions) on 05/07/2013 in Anticipatory Bail Application No. 788/2013. (e) Narasinhulu Balasubramaniam (accu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lier, on two occasions, he was released on bail for short periods and he never misused the privilege granted to him by the Court. 21) We need not go into the reasonings of grant of anticipatory bail to some of the accused since no serious allegations have been levelled against them. 22) In the light of the details, allegations in the chargesheet filed before the court, many of the co-accused were granted bail by the trial court/High Court and this Court and of the fact that both the appellants are in custody for nearly 7 years pending trial and also in view of the fact that it would not be possible for the special Court to conclude the trial within a reasonable period as claimed by learned ASG, we inclined to consider their claim for bail. 23) In the light of the statement made by learned ASG, we direct 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 Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
