1. Accused in multiple criminal cases across various states remains detained despite bail orders due to conflicting production warrants — alleged violation of Article 21. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2000 Supreme(SC) 624
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.P.Mohapatra : K.T.Thomas
V.K.Sharma
Versus
Union Of India
Case No. : 256 of 1999
Date of Decision : 3/28/00
In peculiar circumstances where an accused remains detained despite bail due to multiple production warrants across states, the court may grant conditional release to protect the fundamental right to liberty, while refusing consolidation of cases across states to avoid witness hardship.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Art. 21 and Art. 32 - Indian Penal Code - Sections 406, 409, 420 and 120-B - Accused obtaining bail in multiple cases across different states but unable to be released due to continuous production warrants - Violation of fundamental right to liberty - Court's power to grant relief in peculiar circumstances. (Para 1)
(B) Transfer and Consolidation of Cases - Request to transfer all cases from different states to one court and for central agency to take over investigation - Refused - Hardship to witnesses and investigating agencies spread across different states. (Para 3)
Facts of the case:
An individual, acting as a director of a group of companies, was accused of various offenses under the Indian Penal Code in numerous cases across several states. Despite obtaining bail orders in these cases, the individual remained incarcerated because production warrants from various courts were continuously issued, preventing release. The individual sought the transfer and consolidation of all cases to a single court and a central agency investigation, alleging a violation of the fundamental right to life and liberty.
Findings of Court:
The court found it impractical to consolidate all cases from different states into one court or to transfer the investigation to a central agency due to the hardship it would cause witnesses and agencies. However, recognizing the peculiar situation where the individual remained jailed despite bail, the court provided a mechanism for release.
Issues: Whether the consolidation of multiple criminal cases from different states into one court is feasible and whether the individual's continued detention despite bail orders violates the fundamental right to liberty.
Ratio Decidendi: While consolidation across states is unwarranted due to witness hardship, the court can exercise judicial discretion in peculiar circumstances to ensure that an accused is not indefinitely detained despite having bail. The court ordered that the accused be released on bail upon executing a bond and surrendering his passport, while allowing him to seek consolidation of cases within the jurisdiction of respective High Courts. (Para 4)
Result: Writ Petition disposed of.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner sought transfer and consolidation of all cases to a single court and the handover of investigations to the Central Bureau of Investigation. (Para 2 )
3. Consolidation of cases across different states would cause unwarranted hardship to witnesses and investigating agencies. (Para 3 )
4. In exceptional circumstances where multiple production warrants prevent the execution of bail, the court may grant conditional liberty to protect fundamental rights under Article 21. (Para 1 , 4 )
5. Petitioner released on bail subject to passport surrender, bond execution, and assurance of court attendance, with liberty to seek consolidation within High Court jurisdictions. (Para 4 , 5 )
6. Can all criminal cases pending in different states be consolidated into one court?
No, the court observed that consolidating cases spread across different states would impose unwarranted and unnecessary hardships on witnesses and the investigating agencies. (Para 3 )
7. How can a petitioner seek consolidation of cases within a specific state?
The petitioner may move the appropriate High Court to bring all cases pending within that High Court's territorial jurisdiction to a single court or a limited number of courts. (Para 4 )
8. What conditions may be imposed to ensure the presence of an accused granted conditional liberty in multiple cases?
Conditions may include the surrender of a passport, execution of a bond, and an assurance of presence in court, with the option to apply for exemption from personal appearance. (Para 4 )
(1) WE heard Shri Shanti Bhushan, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Shri R.N. Trivedi, Additional Solicitor General and also all the other counsel who represented different States. Here is a very peculiar situation in which the petitioner, as sequal to the business transactions indulged in by him is now an accused for offences under Sec.406,409 and 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code not in one case and not even a dozen of cases but in a large number of cases pending in different States (it is pointed out cases are pending in nine States). He has no grievance that when he applied for bail the order has not been granted in his favour in any particular case. None of the courts in any of the cases found it necessary to refuse bail to him. But in spite of getting such bail orders granted in his favour he remains in jail for the last sixteen months without being released out. The reason for that is - the jail authorities find it difficult to release him since production warrants reached them from other courts as for the petitioner. Naturally the jail authorities will, have to keep him in detention for producing him before the court in compliance with such production warrants. The unfortunate net result is that the petitioner, in spite of obtaining orders of bail in his favour, continues to languish injail. He contends that his fundamental right ensured under Art.21 of the Constitution is very violently violated due to the peculiar situation which is developed.
(2) PETITION has filed this Writ Petition praying for the following reliefs: "a) Grant a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Art.32 of the Constitution of India directing the Respondents to transfer all the F.I.R.s registered against the Petitioner by virtue of his being the Managing Director &/or Director of the JVG Group of Companies listed in prayer clause (d) and the cases in respect thereof pending before the different Courts of the country to the Court of MM, Patiala House, New Delhi and then consolidate them for the purpose of investigation, enquiry and trial. b) Grant a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Art.32 of the Constitution of India directing the Respondents that all the other cases in which the petitioner is arrayed as an accused shall be investigated, inquired into and tried alongwith the cases listed in Annexure P-20. c) Grant a writ of Manduamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Art.32 of the Constitution of India directing the CBI to take over the investigation in respect of all the cases in which the petitioner and/or the JVG Group of Companies are arrayed as accused registered or to be registered in different states all over India."
(3) IT is not possible for us to order that all his cases pending in different States should be consolidated into one and brought before one court. That would impose unwarranted and unnecessary hardships on the witnesses and investigating agency spread over to those different States. Nor are we inclined to order the Central Bureau of Investigation to take up the investigation in respect of all cases in which the petitioner and or the JVG group of companies are arrayed as accused.
(4) NONETHELESS, we exercised our judicial considerations ] seriously to find out a solution in the peculiar situation. We were benefitted by the arguments addressed by all the learned counsel in this case. We, therefore, persuade ourselves to grant the following reliefs to the petitioner: 1. If the petitioner is arrested in connection with any criminal case in his capacity as Managing Director/Director of JVG group of companies the arresting officer shall release him on bail on his executing a bond to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. 2. Such relief shall be made after getting an assurance from him that he will be present in the court concerned on the days when his case is posted. However, we make it clear that i
