2008 Supreme(SC) 1398

2008(6) Supreme 573
Supreme Court of india
C.K. Thakker and D.K. Jain, JJ.
Pramod Kumar Saxena — Appellant
versus
Union of India & Ors. — Respondents
Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 58 of 2007
Decided on : 19-09-08

Important Point
Where Writ petition was filed by petitioner an under-trial prisoner lodged in Jail, since more than ten years for enforcement of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, 20 and 21 of Constitution, said petition was partly allowed on ground that only if petitioner came out of jail he would be able to make arrangement for repayment of amount and also to defend cases registered against him.

Headnote:Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 32 – Writ petition by petitioner an under-trial prisoner lodged in District Jail, Bareilly since more than ten years for enforcement of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, 20 and 21 of Constitution – Petitioner’s case that he had been implicated as an accused in as many as 48 cases in six different States for commission of offences punishable under Sections 406, 409 and 420 read with Section 120B of IPC and also under Section 138 of NI Act, 1881 – Case of petitioner that he was Managing Director of the Company, known as “Imperial Forestry Corporation Ltd and was joined as one of the accused in several cases against company – Grievance of Petitioner, that he was arrested in August, 1998 and as an under-trial prisoner, he had completed more than ten years in jail and was constrained to approach Court for protection of his fundamental rights by an appropriate direction from Court to respondents so that he may be able to come out of jail as also make arrangement for his defence – Petitioner alleged that even though petitioner had been ordered to be enlarged on bail in some of the cases, he was unable to come out since in other cases, either the investigation was in progress or petitioner had not been produced before Magistrate for trial – Held that in view of facts and circumstances of case, petitioner deserved some relief from Court – True it was that as per the allegation of prosecution, various offences had been committed by petitioner and those cases were pending at difference places – But other equally important fact also could not be overlooked that he was in jail since more than ten years – Section 436A of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005, did not directly apply to case, as no retrospective effect had been given to said provision – Held appropriate to grant limited relief to the petitioner – So far as consolidation of cases and trial of all the cases in one Court was concerned, petitioner held not entitled to such relief – On overall facts and circumstances, to meet ends of justice petition partly allowed by issuing directions that if the petitioner applied for bail, an appropriate Court would release him on bail on his executing a bond to satisfaction of such Court. (Paras 24 to 37)

       Facts of the Case :

       Writ petition was filed herein in the instant case by petitioner an under-trial prisoner lodged in District Jail, Bareilly since more than ten years for enforcement of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, 20 and 21 of Constitution . Petitioner’s case that he had been implicated as an accused in as many as 48 cases in six different States for commission of offences punishable under Sections 406, 409 and 420 read with Section 120B of IPC and also under Section 138 of N I Act, 1881. Case of petitioner that he was Managing Director of the Company, known as “Imperial Forestry Corporation Ltd and was joined as one of the accused in several cases against company. Grievance of Petitioner, that he was arrested in August, 1998 and as an under-trial prisoner, he had completed more than ten years in jail and was therefore, constrained to approach Court for protection of his fundamental rights by an appropriate direction from Court to respondents so that he may be able to come out of jail as also make arrangement for his defence.

       Findings of the Court :

       Held that in view of facts and circumstances of case, petitioner deserved some relief from Court. True it was that as per the allegation of prosecution, various offences had been committed by petitioner and those cases were pending at difference places. But other equally important fact also could not be overlooked that he was in jail since more than ten years. Prima facie, submission of petitioner held to be well-founded that only if petitioner comes out of jail that he would be able to make arrangement for repayment of amount and also to defend cases registered against him. Held appropriate to grant limited relief to the petitioner. So far as consolidation of cases and trial of all the cases in one Court was concerned, petitioner held not entitled to such relief. On overall facts and circumstances, to meet ends of justice petition partly allowed by issuing directions that if the petitioner would apply for bail, an appropriate Court would release him on bail on his executing a bond to satisfaction of such Court and that if the petitioner was not arrested but was likely/required to be arrested Arresting Officer shall release him on bail on his executing a bond to satisfaction of the Arresting Officer.

       Result : Writ Petition partly allowed.