Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, AMITAVA ROY, JJ.
CHANDRAKESHWAR PRASAD @ CHANDU BABU – Petitioners
VERSUS
STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR. – Respondents
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 932 OF 2016(Arising out SLP (Crl.) No. 7284 of 2016)
WITH
STATE OF BIHAR – Petitioners
VERSUS
MD. SHAHABUDDIN – Respondents
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 933 OF 2016 (Arising out SLP (Crl.) No. 7230 of 2016)
Decided On : 30-09-2016
(2004) 7 SCC 528; (2007) 1 SCC 70; (2012) 9 SCC 446 – Relied upon
(b) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 439 – Having regard to recorded allegations, proved and charges pending adjudication, and the present stage of the case, bail ought not to be granted to the respondent-accused – Impugned order granting bail to respondent-accused cannot be sustained. (Para 13, 14, 15)
Facts of the case:
In this case challenge is to the order passed by the High Court granting bail to the respondent-accused (Md. Shahabuddin) in connection with Siwan Town P.S. Case No. 220 of 2014, Siwan under Sections 302/34, 120-B IPC on the ground that there is no progress in the trial and further considering the period of his detention, on execution of bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siwan subject to the other conditions as laid down by the High Court, the complainant and the State of Bihar have preferred these appeals, on several pleas, amongst others, that the respondent-accused has an infamous criminal history/antecedents of about 60 odd cases pending against him at various stages of trial and appeal on his conviction before the various courts in Bihar as well as in the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
Impugned order granting bail to respondent-accused cannot be sustained.
Result: Appeals allowed.
ORDER
1) Leave granted.
2) Challenging the order passed by the High Court granting bail to the respondent-accused (Md. Shahabuddin) in connection with Siwan Town P.S. Case No. 220 of 2014, Siwan under Sections 302/34, 120-B IPC on the ground that there is no progress in the trial and further considering the period of his detention, on execution of bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siwan subject to the other conditions as laid down by the High Court, the complainant and the State of Bihar have preferred these appeals, by way of special leave, inter alia, on several pleas, amongst others, that the respondent-accused has an infamous criminal history/antecedents of about 60 odd cases pending against him at various stages of trial and appeal on his conviction before the various courts in Bihar as well as in the High Court.
3) We have heard Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned Counsel appearing for the Complainant, Mr. Dinesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel appearing for the State of Bihar and Mr. Shekhar Naphade, learned senior counsel appearing for the accused-respondent No.2.
4) Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel appearing for the complainant contended that the High Court committed a gross error in granting bail to the respondent-accused and did not consider the contents of the F.I.R. as well as the fact that he is a habitual offender, and that he has in the meantime been awarded two sentences of life imprisonment and also named in several criminal cases. The learned counsel further urged that the respondent-accused is a category-A history sheeter in view of his persistent criminal antecedents and as in the case in hand, he has been charged with the offence of facilitating murder of a witness in a case in which he was being tried, he ought not to have been granted bail in any view of the matter.
5) Mr. Dinesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel appearing for the State of Bihar, submitted that the Court must take into account the antecedents of the accused before granting bail in these type of cases and, in support of his contention, referred to Section 437 of the Cr.P.C. He further submitted a chart of several cases pending against the respondent-accused where he has been convicted/charged, amongst others, under various Sections i.e. 302, 307/34, 324, 353, 364, 147, 148, 149 of the IPC and Sections 25(14), 35 & 27 of the Arms Act.
6) Mr. Shekhar Napahde, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent-accused submitted that the High Court granted bail on the ground that the trial could not be completed within a period of nine months, as directed by the High Court vide order dated 03.02.2016 while rejecting his earlier prayer for bail in the same case. He further submitted that as it would appear from the records, the prosecution is deliberately delaying the trial so as to protract his detention. He also pointed out that this design of the State would be evident from the fact that he has been transferred from Siwan Jail to Bhagalpur Central Jail, without following the procedure prescribed by law.
7) Mr. Naphade, learned senior counsel further contended that in the earlier case in which the respondent-accused had faced trial under Sections 302/364A/201 and 120B IPC and had been convicted thereunder and against which appeal is presently pending before the High Court, the police witnesses had on oath stated that on the date of the incident, he was in jail custody.
8) Mr. Naphade also urged that, having regard to the categorical direction issued by the High Court in its order dated 3.2.2016, while rejecting the prayer for bail of the respondent-accused, to expedite the commitment of the case and to complete the trial preferably within nine months after the receipt of the records in the Sessions Court, the order impugned is perfectly justified in the facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly in view of the indifference of the prosecution to
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
