Back
2018 Supreme(SC) 1842
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ranjan Gogoi, R. Banumathi, Navin Sinha, JJ.
Shivshankar Bhatt - Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 706 of 2018 (Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 2319 of 2018)
Decided On : 08-05-2018
Mr. Ajit Sharma, AOR, Mr. Manohar Pratap and Mr. Peeyush Bhatia, Advocates, For the Petitioner; Mr. Atul Jha, Mr. Sandeep Jha and Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, Advocates, For the Respondent
Headnote:
Bail - Prevention of Corruption Act - Denial of bail to accused appellant
Fact of the Case:
The accused appellant, Shivshankar Bhatt, sought bail in a case involving offenses under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The co-accused had been granted bail due to the period of custody suffered and the likely trial completion period.
Finding of the Court:
The court declined to release the accused appellant on bail, citing the substantial amount of cash recovered from the appellant's office and the need for expeditious trial completion. The court directed the trial court to complete the trial within one year, allowing the accused to renew the bail application if the trial was not completed within the specified period.
Issues: Bail application in a case involving serious offenses under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The denial of bail was based on the substantial amount of cash recovered from the appellant's office and the need for expeditious trial completion, with the court directing the trial court to complete the trial within one year.
Final Decision: The appeal for bail was dismissed, and the trial court was directed to complete the trial within one year, with the possibility for the accused to renew the bail application if the trial was not completed within the specified period.
ORDER
1. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
2. We are not inclined to release the accused appellant on bail. As bail has been granted to the co-accused taking into account the period of custody suffered by the said coaccused and the likely period during which the trial would be completed, we have thought it proper to support our decision for declining bail to the accused appellant with adequate reasons. Hence the leave granted.
3. The offences alleged against the accused appellant are under the various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the maximum punishment for which is ten (10) years.
4. We have perused the charge-sheet and have considered the allegations levelled against the present accused appellant-Shivshankar Bhatt and other co-accused who have been granted bail.
5. The recovery made from the office of the accused appellant is cash amounting to Rs. 1,62,97,500/- (Rupees One crore Sixty two lakh Ninety Seven thousand and Five hundered) which money was found hidden in different office-files. The accused appellant, at the relevant time, was posted as Manager in Nagrik Apurti Nigam. The allegations against the other co-accused are somewhat different and the amount of money recovered is also on the lower side.
6. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the just and appropriate order in the present case would be to direct the learned trial Court to complete the trial as expeditiously as possible and, in any case, within a period of one year from today. If the trial is not completed within the aforesaid period of one year the accused appellant may renew his prayer for bail before the learned trial Court.
7. The appeal is dismissed in the above terms.
