Back
2012 (2) Supreme 136
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Altamas Kabir and Gyan Sudha Misra, JJ.
Susanta Ghosh — Appellant
versus
State of West Bengal — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.310 of 2012
(Arising out of SLP(Crl) No.9350 of 2011)
Decided on : 3-2-2012
Facts of the Case :
A. Present Appeal is directed against judgment and order passed by the High Court rejecting an application for grant of bail filed by appellant under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, in connection with case registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 448, 326, 307, 302, 506, 201 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.
B. The Appellant is an elected Member of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly. His prayer for bail is based mainly on the ground that on account of political vendetta he has been named as an accused in a First Information Report which was lodged on 5th June, 2011, in respect of an incident which occurred on 22nd September, 2002, and in respect whereof three separate FIRs had been lodged, two on the date of incident itself and one on 26th September, 2002, in which he had not been named.
Findings of the Court :
A. The Court held that Appellant had been arrested in connection with a FIR lodged 9 years after incident. During all these years there was no allegation that the Appellant had interfered with the investigation. Furthermore, in connection with this case he was also granted anticipatory bail. There was nothing to indicate that such privilege was either abused or misused by the Appellant.
B. The parameters laid down by Apex Court for considering grant of bail to an accused include the likelihood of his absconsion and tampering with the evidence or the witnesses or even the investigation. Tampering with the evidence or the investigation is no longer relevant since charge-sheet has already been filed in the case. As far as absconsion is concerned, the Appellant being a sitting MLA, even such a possibility was remote. There was, of course, the possibility that the Appellant may tamper with the witnesses. However, considering the fact that the matter had been reopened as far as Appellant was concerned, after an interval of about 10 years, even such a possibility appeared to be remote. However, in order to prevent such an eventuality, the Appellant could be put on terms, as was done by High Court while allowing his prayer for Anticipatory Bail.
C. Appeal allowed with direction that Appellant be released on bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The trial Court may impose such conditions as may be necessary to secure the Appellant’s presence during the trial.
Key Points: - Appellant, an elected MLA, sought bail under Cr.P.C. Section 439 in connection with multiple FIRs and Arms Act/IPC charges; High Court rejected; Apex Court allowed bail with conditions. (!) (!) (!) - Supreme Court reaffirmed bail parameters: likelihood of absconsion, tampering with evidence, and tampering with witnesses or investigation; noted tampering is less relevant post charge-sheet; absconsion remote for sitting MLA; conditions may be imposed to secure presence. (!) (!) (!) - Court held that even with delay in FIRs and initial non-involvement in earlier FIRs, bail could be granted subject to conditions to ensure presence during trial. (!) (!) (!) - Bail allowed with specific conditions: restrict movement within district except assembly constituency, report to police monthly, and ensure presence at all stages of trial. (!) - Appeal disposed of with direction to release on bail by Trial Court upon conditions. (!)
ORDER
Altamas Kabir, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 29th September, 2011, passed by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in C.R.M. No.7982 of 2011, which was an application for grant of bail under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”, in connection with Anandapur Police Station Case No.36 of 2011, dated 6th June, 2011, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 448, 326, 307, 302, 506, 201 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, corresponding to G.R. Case No.1364 of 2011, pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Paschim Medinipur. The Appellant had moved the High Court for bail against the order dated 20th August, 2011, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Paschim Medinipur, rejecting his prayer for bail and remanding him to jail custody.
3. The Appellant is an elected Member of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly. His prayer for bail is based mainly on the ground that on account of political vendetta he has been named as an accused in a First Information Report which was lodged on 5th June, 2011, in respect of an incident which occurred on 22nd September, 2002, and in respect whereof three separate FIRs had been lodged, two on the date of incident itself and one on 26th September, 2002, in which he had not been named. The first FIR was lodged by one Nemai Ch. Sarkar, which was recorded as FIR No.59 dated 22nd September, 2002 of Keshpur PS, Paschim Medinipur, under Sections 148, 149, 307 and 302 IPC read with Sections 25, 27 and 35 of the Arms Act as also Section 9(b) of the Indian Explosives Act.
4. The second FIR was lodged by one Shri Debashish Roy, the Station House Officer of Keshpur Police Station, on the same day and in respect of the same incident, which was recorded as FIR No.60 dated 22nd September, 2002, under similar provisions.
5. The third FIR was lodged by the daughter of the deceased, Smt. Chandana Acharya, which was recorded as Keshpur PS Case No.61 dated 26th September, 2002, under Sections 148, 149, 448, 326, 307, 364 and 506 IPC read with Sections 25 and 26 of the Arms Act.
6. As will be apparent from the three FIRs, the first two related to the incident in which seven persons, including the father of the third complainant, Ajoy Acharya, were killed at Piyasala Village and their bodies were removed to and buried at Daser Bandh, Keshpur. As indicated hereinabove, in none of the above FIRs was the Appellant named, nor was he included in the charge-sheets which were filed.
7. The cases which arose out of the first two FIRs in which charge-sheets were filed under Sections 148, 149, 302 IPC and also under Sections 448, 364 and 506 IPC, ended in acquittal of the accused persons who were alleged to have committed the offences complained of. The third case is, however, still pending trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Paschim Medinipur.
8. From amongst a number of skeletons which were recovered from a grave in Daser Bandh, Keshpur, one of the skeletons was identified by one Shyamal Acharya, the younger son of the deceased, on the strength of the clothes which were recovered, together with a set of teeth, which were identified to be that of the deceased, Ajoy Acharya. It is thereafter that the fourth FIR was lodged by Shri Shyamal Acharya, being Anandapur P.S. Case No.36 of 6th June, 2011, in which 40 persons were named as accused and the name of the Appellant was shown at serial No.2 and it was alleged that he had entered into a criminal conspiracy with the other accused persons in order to cause the deaths of the seven victims, who were allegedly members of the Trinamool Congress. It was further alleged that a peace meeting had been held prior to the incident and the victims were returning to their homes upon the assurance that had been given in the meeting that peace would be maintained by the local villagers. The further allegation was that
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
