Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. SHAH, C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
Central Bureau of Investigation – Appellant
Versus
P.S. Jayaprakash Etc. Etc. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2147 of 2022 (Arising from SLP(Criminal) Nos.8008-8010 of 2021)
With
Central Bureau of Investigation – Appellant
Versus
Dr. Siby Mathews – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2149 of 2022 (Arising from SLP(Criminal) No.4097 of 2022)
Decided on : 02-12-2022
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 437(5) and 439(2) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 120B, 167, 218, 330, 323, 195, 348, 365, 477A and 506 – Anticipatory bail – Grant of – Challenge as to – High Court has made some observations without considering individual role played by respective accused when they were working in Kerala Police/IB and without considering nature of allegations against them – What weighed with High Court is that FIR was filed after a number of years – However, High Court has not appreciated at all that FIR was lodged pursuant to liberty reserved by this Court in judgment and order passed in year 2021 and on the basis of recommendations made by Committee headed by a former Judge of Supreme Court – While granting anticipatory bail to respondents-accused, High Court has neither considered allegations against respective accused nor role played by them nor the position held by them at the time of registering FIR in year 1994 nor role played by them during investigation of crime – Impugned judgment(s) and order(s) passed by High Court granting anticipatory bail to respondents-original accused quashed and set aside and matters remitted to High Court to consider anticipatory bail applications afresh. (Paras 4, 5 and 6)
Facts of the case:
Vide impugned common judgment and order High Court has allowed bail applications and has granted anticipatory bail to private respondents herein – original accused in connection with Crime Case registered by Central Bureau of Investigation(CBI) alleging offences punishable under Sections 120B, 167, 218, 330, 323, 195, 348, 365, 477A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. CBI has preferred present appeals.
Findings of Court:
High Court to decide and dispose of bail applications afresh on remand without in any way being influenced by the present interim arrangement and the High Court shall decide and disposed of the bail applications on remand strictly in accordance with law and on their own merits.
Result : Appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT :
M.R. SHAH, J.
Leave granted.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order dated 13.08.2021 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Bail Application Nos. 5010/2021, 5109/2021 and 5809/2021 and a separate order dated 16.11.2021 passed by the High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 4424/2021, by which the High Court has allowed the said bail applications and has granted anticipatory bail to the private respondents herein – original accused in connection with Crime No. RC/050/2021/S0007 of SC-II Delhi Police Station registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation(CBI) alleging offences punishable under Sections 120B, 167, 218, 330, 323, 195, 348, 365, 477A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the CBI has preferred the present appeals.
2. The allegations against the accused in the present FIR relate back to the year 1994 in connection with Crime No. 225/1994/246/1994 registered by the Kerala Police and the Intelligence Bureau (IB) officials which was registered against one Mariyam Rashida. One S Nambi Narayanan was arrested along with two other persons. The investigation was handed over to the CBI. The CBI submitted the closure report before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. stating that the evidence collected indicated that the allegations of espionage against the scientists of ISRO including S Nambi Narayanan were not proved and were found to be false. The said report came to be accepted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam vide order dated 2.5.1996 and all the accused came to be discharged. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the said criminal proceedings were initially investigated by the Kerala Police and Intelligence Bureau (IB) and all the accused in the present criminal case were the officials at the relevant time.
2.1 That thereafter the said S. Nambi Narayanan approached the learned Single Judge of the High Court praying for a direction to the State Government to take appropriate action against the police officials. The learned Single Judge allowed the said writ petition. The matter was carried before the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala. The Division Bench overturned the decision of the learned Single Judge setting aside the order of the State Government declining to take appropriate action against the police officials and remitted the matter to the State Government. The judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court was the subject matter before this Court by way of Criminal Appeal Nos. 6637-6638 of 2018. By a detailed judgment dated 14.09.2018, reported in (2018) 10 SCC 804, this Court allowed the said appeals. This Court directed the State of Kerala to pay a sum of Rs. 50 lacs towards compensation to the appellant – S. Nambi Narayanan. This Court also directed to constitute a Committee headed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain, a former Judge of this Court, to find out ways and means to take appropriate steps against the erring officials.
2.2 That thereafter, the Committee appointed under the order of this Court dated 14.09.2018 headed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain, a former Judge of this Court, submitted its report dated 25.03.2021 in a sealed cover before this Court. After perusing the report, this Court vide order dated 16.04.2021 directed the Registry to forward one copy of the report to the Director/Acting Director of CBI who may then proceed in the matter in accordance with law being a Court directed enquiry. This Court also observed and made it clear that it will be open to the CBI to treat the report as a preliminary inquiry report and proceed in the matter appropriately. This Court also clarified that the said report shall not be made public and it can be used by the CBI during further enquiry/investigation process that is required to be undertaken by the CBI as recommended in the report.
2.3 That thereafter and taking into consideration the
Anticipatory bail – While granting anticipatory bail Court must consider role played by accused in crime.
Grant of Bail - Overstaying in India after the expiry of Visa - Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. is not extraordinary in the sentence that it should be invoked only in exceptional or rare cases.
The Supreme Court emphasized that anticipatory bail should not be misconstrued as a norm and cautioned against granting ad interim relief that essentially provides final outcomes pending full hearing....
Anticipatory bail should not be granted in serious offences.
(1) Bail application – Speedy disposal – Bail and anticipatory applications must be decided expeditiously on their own merits, without relegating parties to a state of indefinite pendency – High Cour....
Maxim "actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea" - A mere commission of a criminal act is not enough to constitute a crime, and this is more important in case of more serious crimes.
Grant of Bail - While grant of anticipatory bail court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering w....
Anticipatory bail – Specious reason of change in circumstances cannot be invoked for successive anticipatory bail applications, once it is rejected by a speaking order and that too by same Judge.
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
