SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(SC) 1270

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Jagdish Singh Khehar, C. Nagappan, JJ.
Dr. Gokarakonda Naga Saibaba - Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 249 of 2016
Decided On : 04-04-2016

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: R.S. Cheema, Ms. Rebecca John, Ms. Tarannum Cheema, Harsh Bora, Jawahar Raja, Manvendra Singh for Sanjay Jain
For the Respondent: Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, Arpit Rai

The release of the petitioner on bail was justified due to the examination and cross-examination of all material witnesses and the unfairness of opposing the release, considering the medical condition of the petitioner.

Headnote:

Bail - Release of Petitioner - The court directed the trial court to hold day-to-day trial to record the statements of material witnesses and subsequently released the petitioner on bail, considering the examination and cross-examination of all material witnesses and the medical condition of the petitioner.

Fact of the Case:

The court directed the trial court to hold day-to-day trial to record the statements of all material witnesses and subsequently released the petitioner on bail.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that all material witnesses had been examined and cross-examined, and the release of the petitioner on bail should not have been opposed, especially considering the medical condition of the petitioner.

Issues: Opposition to release on bail, examination of material witnesses, medical condition of the petitioner

Ratio Decidendi: The release of the petitioner on bail was justified due to the examination and cross-examination of all material witnesses and the unfairness of opposing the release, considering the medical condition of the petitioner.

Final Decision: The court directed the release of the petitioner on bail forthwith, to the satisfaction of the trial court, with a condition for the petitioner to appear before the trial court when directed, failing which the concession of bail may be cancelled.

ORDER :

This Court passed the following order on 29.02.2016:

"We have perused the counter affidavit as also the additional affidavit filed by the State of Maharashtra. We have also heard learned counsel for the petitioner. It emerges that out of 34 witnesses, cited by the prosecution, some of the material witnesses have already been examined whereas 8 further material witnesses are yet to be examined. The names furnished to us by Mr. Ramesh Malhari Dhumal, Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Aheri, Gadchiroli, who is assisting the counsel representing the State of Maharashtra, are as under:

1. Shrikant Pochreddi Gaddewar

2. Ravindra Manohar Kumbhare

3. Ramesh K. Yede

4. Raju Poriya Atram

5. Atul Shantaram Avhad

6. Suhas Prakash Bawche

7. Shri Vyas (JMFC, Aheri)

8. Apekha Ramteke

At the present moment, we consider it just and appropriate to direct the trial court to hold day-to-day trial with effect from 04.03.2016 so as to record the statements of all material witnesses. The statements of the material witnesses, referred to herein above, be positively concluded before the next date of hearing.

List again on 04.04.2016."

2. It is submitted by Mr. Nishant R. Katneshwarkar, learned counsel representing the respondent - State of Maharashtra, that in compliance with the directions issued by this Court, all material witnesses have been examined, and also cross-examined. He further states, that the following formal eight witnesses are still to be examined:

1. Dr. Amitabh Rajan, Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Sanctioning Authority under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

2. Shri K.P. Bakshi, Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Sanctioning Authority under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

3. Francies Pareira, Nodal Officer, Vodafone

4. Rajneesh Kumar, Nodal Officer, BSNL

5. Authorised Signatory, Bharti Airtel

6. Bhavesh Nikam, Scientific Officer, CFSL, Mumbai

7. K.D. Korde, Superintendent, Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gadchiroli.

8. Shri Ramesh Dhumal, Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Second Investigating Officer.

It is submitted, that if the petitioner is kept under detention for a period of two days from 16.04.2016, the above mentioned eight witnesses will also be examined. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent, that in case the petitioner is ordered to be released from jail, he is likely to indulge himself in the anti-national activities.

3. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the rival parties, specially the undisputed position that the petitioner has never been accused of having misused the concession of bail, we are of the view, that the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent is extremely unfair. Since all the material witnesses have been examined and cross-examined, the release of the petitioner on bail ought not to have been opposed, especially keeping in mind the medical condition of the petitioner.

4. In view of the above, we hereby direct the release of the petitioner on bail forthwith. Bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

5. Needless to mention, that the petitioner shall enter appearance before the trial Court, as and when the petitioner is directed to appear before the trial Court, failing which, it shall be open to the trial Court to cancel the concession of bail granted to him.

The instant petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top