IMPORTANT POINT
Period of custody, grant of bail to other co-accused, likelihood of delay in conclusion of trial, misuse of earlier bail are relevant factors for grant of bail.

JUDGMENT

P.Sathasivam, CJI.:-

1. Leave granted in both the appeals.

2. These appeals are directed against the orders dated 20.11.2013 and 10.07.2013 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Bail Application Nos. 2002 and 1713 of 2012 respectively, whereby the High Court dismissed the bail applications of both the appellants pending trial.

3. The appellant - Sanghian Pandian Rajkumar (Accused No. 2), an IPS Officer, is one of the accused persons in Special Case No. 5 of 2010 (RC BS1/S/2010/0004-Mumbai dated 01.02.2010), who was charge-sheeted, inter alia, for the offences punishable under Section 120B read with Sections 302, 364, 365, 368, 193, 197, 342, 420, 384, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘the IPC’) and Sections 25(1B)(a) and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and he was arrested on 24.04.2007 and since then is in custody.

4. The other appellant - Balkrishan Rajendraprasad Chaubey (Accused No. 6), who was working as a sub-Inspector of Police in the Anti Terrorist Squad (ATS), Ahmedabad, at the relevant time, is also one of the accused persons in the same case arising out of R.C. No. BS1/S/2010/0004 dated 01.02.2010 registered with the CBI SCB, Mumbai and was charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Section 120B read with Sections 365, 368, 302 and 201 of the IPC and he was arrested on 01.07.2007 and since then is in custody.

5. Inasmuch as we are concerned only with the grant of bail pending trial, there is no need to analyse all the factual details except their involvement in the commission of offence, as alleged by the prosecution.

In the cases on hand, as per the prosecution story, three murders were allegedly committed inter alia by senior police officers like the appellants - Sanghian Pandian Rajkumar (A-2) and Balkrishan Rajendraprasad Chaubey (A-6), whose duty was otherwise to maintain law and order and to prevent the commission of offence.

6. Heard Mr. U.U. Lalit, learned senior counsel, Mr. Sushil Karanjkar, learned counsel for the appellants (A-2 and A-6) respectively and Ms. Indira Jaising, learned Additional Solicitor General for the respondent- CBI.

Submissions:

7. Mr. U.U. Lalit, learned senior counsel for the appellant, by taking us through the allegations against A2 in the charge-sheet filed in the Special Court, submitted that there is no direct evidence linking the present appellant with the commission of offence as alleged by the prosecution and the investigation carried out by the CBI suffers from serious infirmities. He further pointed out that the materials shown to support the prosecution charges against the appellant (A-2) are characterized with various defects such as lack of spontaneity, invaryness, untrustworthiness, hear-say witnesses, inherently impossible or improbable facts and humanly abnormal conducts apart from the infirmities in the charges which are yet to be framed by the Court. He further pointed out that A-2 is in judicial custody without trial for almost seven years and continued incarceration will amount to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He also pointed out that inasmuch as either the High Court or this Court granted bail to similarly placed co-accused, the present appellant is also to be released on the ground of parity. Finally, he stressed on the fact that there are hundreds of witnesses to be examined and voluminous documents exhibited in the charge-sheet, it would not be possible to complete the trial in the near future.

8. Though Mr. Sushil Karanjkar, learned counsel for the appellant - Balkrishan Rajendraprasad Chaubey (A-6) adopted the arguments made by Mr. U.U. Lalit, learned senior counsel, he also submitted that A-6, being a sub- Inspector, was present in the company of certain officers and there is no allegation against him having fired at the deceased. He also pointed out that even if the Court accepts the prosecution story that he was present at the place of firing along with the other police officers, there