Supreme Court of India
MOTAMARRI APPANNA VEERRAJU @ MAV RAJU versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 20 February 2020
970
[2020] 3 S.C.R.
AMOTAMARRI APPANNA VEERRAJU @ MAV RAJU
v.
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 328-331 of 2020)
BFEBRUARY 20, 2020
[A. M. KHANWILKAR AND DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Bail: Grant of interim relief – Interim protection granted tothe appellant by the High Court during the pendency of the bailapplication in corruption case – Sessions Court had rejected theCbail application filed by the appellant whereafter the appellant hadfiled regular bail application before High Court in August 2018 –Instead of finally disposing of the said bail application withpromptitude, High Court granted interim relief on 1.10.2018 andcontinued that protection until this day – Before the High Court,Dappellant sought for modification of interim order passed on1.10.2018 which was declined – Hence the instant appeal – Held:A bail application should be dealt with expeditiously and finally,one way or the other and cannot brook delay – Manner in whichthe bail application filed in August 2018 remained pending beforeHigh Court until this day and that 3only interim orders were passedEthereon from time to time is deprecated – Rejection of bail applicationof co-accused would not come in the way of appellant who wasgranted interim protection by High Court which arrangementcontinued till date without any adverse report against him – To docomplete justice in the matter, the main bail application pendingFbefore the High Court is disposed of with modification in theconditions predicated in the interim order – Appellant to also furnishbail bond of Rs. 25 lacs – Conditions imposed – Appeal disposedof.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal AppealGNos. 328-331 of 2020.
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.05.2019, 05.08.2019,25.09.2019 and 27.11.2019 of the High Court at Calcutta in CRM 6471of 2018.
H
Neeraj Kishal Kaul, Vinay Navare, Sr. Advs., Gaurav Bhargav,Sameer Kumar, Varun Mathur, Bhuwan Mishra, Ms. Niharika, SharukhAhmed, Ms. Nidhi Sahai, Advs. for the Appellant.
Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv., Suhaan Mukerji, Vishal Prasad, AbhishekManchanda, Ms. Mehak Jaggi, Aryan Dev Uniyal, Ankit Dhawan, AmitVerma, Ms. Kajal Dalal, M/s. PLR Chambers and Co., Advs. for theRespondent.
The following Order of the Court was passed:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. These appeals take exception to the judgment(s) and order(s)dated 15.05.2019, 05.08.2019, 25.09.2019 and 27.11.2019 passed by theHigh Court of Judicature at Calcutta in C.R.M. No.6471 of 2018 grantinginterim protection to the appellant during the pendency of the bailapplication which was filed in August, 2018 in connection with offencepunishable under Sections 384/385/389/119/403/120B/411/467/468/471/409 IPC and 13(1)(c)/13(1)(d)/13(1)(3) r/w 13(2) Prevention ofCorruption Act, 1988.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. For the nature of order that we propose to pass, it is unnecessaryto dilate on the factual matrix of the case, except to observe that theinvestigation in connection with F.I.R. No. 27 of 2018, Daspur PoliceStation has already progressed and is at an advance stage of completion,as can be discerned from the chargesheet dated 28.06.2018 andsupplementary chargesheet dated 24.08.2019 qua the appellant beforethis court.
6. The Sessions Court rejected the bail application filed by theappellant whereafter the appellant filed regular bail application beforethe High Court in August, 2018. Instead of finally disposing of the saidbail application with promptitude, the High Court for the reasons, whichare not clear to us, chose to grant interim relief to the appellant videorder dated 01.10.2018 and continued that protection until this day. Theorder dated 01.10.2018 reads thus: - A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
A“...Accordingly, we direct that the petitioner shall be released oninterim bail upon furnishing bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees OneLakh only) with two sureties of like amount, one of whom shall belocal, to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief JudicialMagistrate, Ghatal, Paschim Medinipore, on condition that the heshall not leave the jurisdiction of municipal limits of city of KolkataBuntil further orders except with the permission of this Court andon condition that he shall provide the address where he shallpresently reside to the investigating officer as well as the trialcourt and on further condition he shall meet the investigating agencyone in a week until further orders. He shall not intimate theCwitnesses and/or tamper with evidence in any manner whatsoeverand he shall appear before the trial court on every date of hearingand in the event he fails to do so, his bail shall stand automaticallycancelled without further reference to this Court.
Interim bail shall continue till 30[th] November, 2018 or until furtherDorders, whichever is earlier. Matter will appear for further hearingon 26[th] November, 2018.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, bedelivered to the learned advocates for the parties, upon complianceof usual formalities.”
E7. As aforesaid, the High Court for some reason kept the bailapplication pending from August, 2018 and instead passed successiveinterim orders until 23.11.2019, which are referred to above.
8. The last attempt made by the appellant was for modification ofthe interim order passed on 01.10.2018. That prayer, however, wasFanswered against the appellant as a result of which the appellant rushedto this court by way of the present appeal.
9. In the facts of the present case, instead of deciding the limitedissue about modification of interim order passed by the High Court, inthe interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the main bailGapplication filed by the appellant, vide this order. We are conscious thatsuch a course should be ordinarily eschewed but being convinced aboutthe peculiar fact situation of this case, that approach would meet theends of justice.
10. At the outset, we record our displeasure about the manner inHwhich the bail application filed in August, 2018 has remained pending before the High Court until this day and only interim orders have beenpassed thereon from time to time as referred to above. We have nohesitation in observing that adopting such a course, that too, by aconstitutional Court, is wholly unfathomable and must be eschewed. For,the application for bail or anticipatory bail is a matter of moment for theaccused and protracted hearing thereof may also cause prejudice to theinvestigation and affect the prosecution interests which cannot becomprehended in this order. Such application needs to be dealt withexpeditiously and finally, one way or the other and cannot brook delay.
11. It is not necessary for us to go into the question as to who isresponsible for the situation but, at the same time, we need to deprecatethe course or process followed in the present case. We say no more.
12. Be that as it may, to do complete justice in the matter, wedeem it appropriate to dispose of the main bail application pending beforethe High Court since August, 2018 in terms of this order by modifyingthe conditions predicated in the interim order(s) and which had enured infavour of the appellant since 01.10.2018, in the peculiar facts of thepresent case.
13. We are conscious of the fact that co-accused, whose bailapplication was rejected by the High Court, had approached this courtand his Special Leave Petition being SLP (Crl.) No. 10310 of 2019 hasbeen dismissed by this court on 09.12.2019. However, that order itselfmakes it clear that even that accused is free to approach the concernedCourt after expiry of six months’ time, for bail.
14. In our opinion, rejection of bail application of the co-accusedought not to come in the way of the appellant herein, who, as aforesaid,was granted interim protection by the High Court vide interim order on01.10.2018 and which arrangement has been continued till now withoutany adverse report against him, including of having jumped any conditionimposed by the High Court.
15. The only question is about the nature of conditions to be imposedto ensure that the further investigation, if any, against the appellant canbe conducted in a fair manner and also the trial against the appellant isnot affected either way.
16. Accordingly, after hearing both the sides, we deem it appropriateto dispose of the bail application filed by the appellant on the followingterms:
AB
C
D
E
F
G
H
A
1. The appellant shall furnish bail bond in the sum ofRs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Lakh only) with two sureties ofthe like amount, one of whom shall be local resident, to the satisfactionof the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghatal, Paschim Medinipore.
2. The appellant shall not travel outside India without priorBpermission of this Court.
3. The appellant shall not enter Paschim Medinipore Districtexcept for attending the proceedings pending against him in the concernedcourt, with prefix and suffix of one day.
4. The appellant shall forthwith furnish his ordinary place ofCresidence to the Investigating Officer, if there is any change from theone already furnished by him in terms of this order.
5. The passport of the appellant already deposited by him shallremain in the custody of CID, West Bengal.
6. The appellant shall not intimidate the witnesses and/or tamperwith the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever and he shallappear before the trial court on every date of hearing and in the event hefails to do so, his bail shall stand automatically cancelled without furtherreference to this Court, unless his presence has been expressly exemptedby the Court in advance, for reasons to be recorded therefor.
D
E
7. The appellant shall report to the Investigating Officer on firstMonday of every English Calendar month between 10 a.m. to 12 noon;and on such other days and time as may be required by the InvestigatingOfficer for the purpose of investigation, provided 48 hours advance noticeis given to the appellant in that behalf.F
8. The bail application filed by the appellant in the High Courtbeing CRM No. 6471 of 2018 stands disposed of in terms of this order.
9. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
10. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
G
Devika Gujral
Appeals disposed of.
H