1. Accused facing charges under Section 302 in custody for nineteen months with trial not progressing beyond the framing of charges. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
2019 Supreme(SC) 2354
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ranjan Gogoi, CJI., Deepak Gupta, Sanjiv Khanna, JJ.
Zahur Haider Zaidi - Appellants
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation - Respondents
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.605 OF 2019
(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.2123 of 2018)
Decided on : 05-04-2019
Important Points
The court considered the period of custody suffered, the likely time for completion of trial, and the possibility of approaching the competent court for cancellation of bail if the accused engages in intimidating or influencing witnesses in granting bail to the accused-appellant.
Subject
Criminal Law - Bail Proceedings
Headnote
Bail - Criminal Law - The court granted bail to the accused-appellant, considering the period of custody suffered, the likely time for completion of trial, and the possibility of approaching the competent court for cancellation of bail if the accused engages in intimidating or influencing witnesses.
Fact of the Case:
The accused-appellant, facing charges under Section 302, had been in custody for 19 months with little progress in the trial beyond the framing of the charge.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accused-appellant should be released on bail, considering the period of custody suffered, the likely time for completion of trial, and the possibility of approaching the competent court for cancellation of bail if the accused engages in intimidating or influencing witnesses.
Issues: The issue of whether the accused-appellant is entitled to be released on bail and the subsequent consideration of the transfer of the case after hearing all the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court granted bail to the accused-appellant, taking into account the allegations, the period of custody suffered, and the likely time that may be taken for completion of trial. The court also emphasized that the prosecution can approach the competent court for cancellation of bail if the accused engages in intimidating or influencing witnesses.
Final Decision: The accused-appellant was granted bail in connection with FIR No.RC SI 2017 S0009 CBI/SC-I/New Delhi, with the order of the High Court being set aside and the appeal being disposed of to that extent. The matter was listed after two weeks for hearing on the issue of transfer.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Prosecution opposes bail on the ground that the accused, a high-ranking police officer, may intimidate or influence witnesses. (Para 4 )
3. Bail should not be denied based on apprehension of witness intimidation, as the prosecution can seek cancellation of bail if such conduct occurs. (Para 5 )
4. Apprehension of witness intimidation is insufficient to deny bail when trial progress is slow and custody is prolonged. (Para 5 , 6 )
5. Accused released on bail subject to trial court conditions; High Court order set aside. (Para 6 )
6. Can bail be denied solely on the apprehension that a high-ranking official might influence witnesses?
No, bail should not be denied on the ground that a high-placed officer may intimidate or win over witnesses, as the prosecution can approach the competent court for cancellation of bail if such conduct occurs. (Para 5 )
7. What factors are considered when granting bail in cases of prolonged custody and slow trial progress?
The court considers the nature of the allegations, the period of custody already suffered, and the likely time required for the completion of the trial. (Para 3 , 6 )
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. We would presently consider whether the accused-appellant Zahur Haider Zaidi is entitled to be released on bail. The issue of transfer of case would be considered on a subsequent date after hearing all the accused.
3. Our attention has been drawn to the allegations against the accused-appellant and that he is in custody for the last 19 months. Though the accused-appellant is facing charge under Section 302, we are told that the trial has not made substantial progress beyond the framing of the charge. Completion of trial will take some time.
4. The only apprehension expressed on behalf of the Central Bureau of Investigation is that the appellant being a highly placed police officer may intimidate and win over witnesses and influence them.
5. We are of the view that the bail ought not to be denied on the aforesaid ground and in the event of any such conduct, the prosecution can always approach the competent court for cancellation of bail.
6. Taking into account the allegations, the period of custody suffered and likely time that may be taken for completion of trial, we are of the view that the accused-appellant should be released on bail in connection with FIR No.RC SI 2017 S0009 CBI/SC-I/New Delhi, on satisfaction of the appropriate condition(s) as may be imposed by the learned trial court. The order of the High Court is set aside. The appeal is disposed of to the aforesaid extent.
7. List the matter after two weeks for hearing on the issue of transfer.
