Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. Sathasivam, B.S. Chauhan, JJ.
Dipak Subhashchandra Mehta - Petitioner
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation and Another - Respondents
SLP (Cri.) No. 83 of 2011
Decided On : 29-04-2011
Bail - Medical Illness and Disability - Court declined bail to petitioner A-4 based on the grounds of medical illness and disability, considering the gravity of the allegations and assurance of trial completion within three months.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner A-4 sought bail on the grounds of medical illness and disability, citing release of co-accused A-2 and A-3 on similar grounds. The prosecution opposed, citing serious allegations and assured trial completion within three months.
Finding of the Court:
The Court declined bail to petitioner A-4, considering the release of co-accused A-2 and A-3 mainly on the ground of illness and old age, and the assurance of trial completion within three months.
Issues: Bail application based on medical illness and disability, comparison with release of co-accused, gravity of allegations, and assurance of trial completion.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the grounds for release of co-accused, gravity of allegations, and the assurance of trial completion within three months in declining bail to petitioner A-4.
Final Decision: The special leave petition for bail was disposed of, with the petitioner being permitted to move a bail application before the Special Court if the trial continues beyond the assured three-month period.
ORDER :
P. Sathasivam, B.S. Chauhan, JJ.
Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondents.
2. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi learned Senior Counsel for Petitioner A-4, apart from pointing out that the co-accused, namely, A-2 and A-3 were released on bail both on the ground of serious illness and disability, after taking us through the various proceedings pending before the DRT and other materials about his business transactions submitted that considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody for more than one year and also that he was granted interim bail by the High Court on the ground of medical illness prayed for an order for bail from this Court.
3. On the other hand, Mr P.P. Malhotra, learned Additional Solicitor General after taking us through the serious allegations and the charge-sheet submitted that the case of the present petitioner cannot be compared with the other accused who were ordered to be released on the ground of medical illness. He also submitted that the trial will be completed within a period of three months. According to him, considering the gravity of the allegations made, the present petitioner is not entitled for bail.
4. We have considered the rival contentions and also perused all the relevant documents.
5. In view of the fact that the other two accused, namely, A-2 and A-3 were released mainly on the ground of illness and old age and of the assurance given by the learned Additional Solicitor General that the trial will be completed within a period of three months, we are not inclined to accede to the request of the petitioner. However, we make it clear that for any reason if the trial continues beyond the period assured by the learned Additional Solicitor General, the petitioner is free to move bail application before the Special Court. In such an event the Special Court is permitted to consider it in accordance with law. We also direct the Special Court to make all endeavours for an early completion of the trial as suggested by the learned Additional Solicitor General.
6. The special leave petition is disposed of.
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
