9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 1189X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the process of law. As far as the submission that the applicant may influence the witnesses, as noted hereinabove, the main accused have already been released on bail. In any case, if the prosecution later finds that the applicant is misusing the liberty granted to him, it would always be open to the prosecution to move an appropriate application to seek the cancellation of bail. It is directed that the Applicant be released on Bail subject to fulfilment of conditions imposed - bail application allowed. - Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Chawla For the Applicant : Mr. M.R. Shamshad, Mr. Arijit Sarkar and Ms. Nabeela Jamil, Advs. For the Respondents : Mr. Anupam S Sharrma, SPP (CBI) with Mr. Prakarsh Airan, Ms. Harpreet Kalsi, Mr. Abhishek Batra, Mr. Ripudaman Sharma, Mr. Vashisht Rao, Mr. Syamantak Modgill and Mr. Adeem Ahmed, Advs. ORDER 1. This application has been filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, Cr.P.C. ), praying for the applicant to be released on bail in FIR No. RC0102020A0019 dated 21.09.2020 registered under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, IPC ) read with Sections 7/11/12 of the Preventi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the rival submissions, we are of the considered opinion that the continued detention of the appellant in custody is not warranted in the facts of the present case. The appellant was granted default bail by the Special Judge, CBI Court at Thiruvananthapuram on 7 May 2018. In the regular case out of which the present appeal arises, the appellant was arrested and has been in custody since 6 November 2020. The charge-sheet has been submitted on 6 February 2021 and a supplementary chargesheet has been submitted on 23 February 2021. Apart from a vague assertion that the investigation is in progress, no basis has been indicated why even after a lapse of over a year, the continued custody of the appellant is required. Having due regard to the fact that the charge sheet and a supplementary charge sheet have been filed, the nature of the alleged offence and the maximum sentence, the continued detention of the appellant who has suffered custody for a year and two months is not warranted. 9. He further submits that the other main accused, that is, Satish Kumar, has also been released on bail by an Order dated 21.12.2020 passed by the Special Judge (CBI) Court, Asansol. 10. He submits that ano ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e accused fleeing from justice; (iv) the impact that his release may make on the prosecution witnesses, its impact on the society; and (v) likelihood of his tampering. No doubt, this list is not exhaustive. There are no hard-and-fast rules regarding grant or refusal of bail, each case has to be considered on its own merits. The matter always calls for judicious exercise of discretion by the Court. 18. While considering the basic requirements for grant of bail, in State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi [(2005) 8 SCC 21], this Court has held as under : (SCC p. 31, para 18) 18. It is well settled that the matters to be considered in an application for bail are (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the charge; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resence of the accused not being secured at the trial; reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with; the larger interest of the public or the State and other similar factors which may be relevant in the facts and circumstances of the case. 16. Applying the above test to the facts of the present case, in my view, the applicant has been able to make out a case for being released on bail. 17. As is noted hereinabove, the applicant has been in custody since 09.06.2022. The main accused, that is, Satish Kumar and Md. Enamul Haque, have already been released on bail by orders passed by the Special Judge and the Supreme Court, respectively. Sekh Abdul Latif has also been granted anticipatory bail by the Supreme Court vide its order dated 12.09.2023. The applicant has been charged under Sections 109/120B/420 of the IPC and Sections 7/9/11/12/13 of the PC Act. The allegations against the applicant in the charge-sheet have also been perused. As stated by the learned counsel for the applicant, there are 189 witnesses, and the trial is not likely to conclude any time soon. 16. It must be kept in view that the custody of the accused during the trial is not to punish him but to ensur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
