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

2023 Supreme(SC) 909

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.B. Pardiwala, JJ.
Christian Michel James – Appellant
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation – Respondent
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 4145 of 2022
Decided On : 07-02-2023

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Aljo K. Joseph, Advocate, Mr. M S.Vishnu Shankar, Advocate, Mr. Sriram P., Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Sanjay Jain, A.S.G., Mr. Zoheb Hussain, Advocate, Mr. B.K. Satija, Advocate, Mr. Adit Khorana, Advocate, Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Advocate, Ms. Sairica Raju, Advocate, Mr. Rahul Mishra, Advocate, Mr. Ashutosh Ghade, Advocate, Mr. Zoheb Hussain, Advocate, Mr. Bhuvan Mishra, Advocate, Mrs. Swati Ghirdiyal, Advocate, Mr. Arkaj Kumar, Advocate, Ms. Ashima Gupta, Advocate, Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Advocate, Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Advocate, Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocate, for the Appellant.

The applicability of Section 436A for bail is determined by the nature and severity of alleged offences under relevant laws.

Headnote:BAIL - EXTRADITION AND SECTION 436A OF CRPC - CrPC 1973, IPC 1860, PC Act 1988, Extradition Act 1962 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and its applicability to the petitioner's case. It also considered the extradition decree from Dubai authorities and relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code and Prevention of Corruption Act. The court concluded that the petitioner's reliance on Section 436A for bail was not valid due to the nature of the offences he was alleged to have committed, including those punishable with life imprisonment.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought bail under Section 436A of CrPC, claiming completion of half of the maximum sentence. However, his extradition decree and alleged offences were considered by the court.

Finding of the Court:

The court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions, stating that Section 436A did not apply to the petitioner's case but clarified that it would not prevent him from seeking regular bail in trial court.

Issues:

Applicability of Section 436A for bail in light of extradition decree and alleged offences.

Ratio Decidendi:

The nature of alleged offences, including those punishable with life imprisonment, rendered Section 436A inapplicable for bail.

Final Decision:

Special Leave Petitions dismissed; petitioner allowed to seek regular bail in trial court.

ORDER

1. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner relied on the provisions of Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 ['CrPC'] in aid of the submission that the petitioner has completed half of the maximum sentence and is, therefore, entitled to bail.

    2. We are not inclined to accept the submission of the petitioner. The extradition decree in Dubai, on which the petitioner places reliance, provides as follows:

      'Whereas the case is related to the extradition of Christian James Michael, British citizen, to the Indian authorities on charge of "misuse of occupation or position, money laundering, collusion, fraud, misappropriation and offering illegal gratification". Whereas the merits of the extradition request are briefed in that the Indian authorities requested the UAE to extradite Christian James Michael, British citizen, on charge of misuse of position or job, money laundering, collusion, fraud, misappropriation and offering illegal gratification within the territory of the requesting country. An arrest warrant was issued by the court in the requesting state.' (emphasis supplied)

    3. The purport of the decree is to cover several offences which have been highlighted above. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has placed reliance on the extract from the extradition decree which contains a reference to the provisions of Sections 415, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code 1860 ['IPC'] and Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 ['PC Act'].

      4. The submission of the petitioner is that the unamended provision of the PC Act provided for imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to five years. The provisions of Section 8 were initially amended by Act 1 of 2014 and subsequently, substituted by Act 16 of 2018. It has been submitted that the maximum term of imprisonment for the offence under Section 420 IPC is seven years whereas under the unamended provisions of Section 8 of the PC Act, it was five years. Since the petitioner was arrested on 4 December 2018, it has been submitted that he has already undergone over four years and two months of under trial custody and bearing in mind the provisions of Section 436A of CrPC, he is entitled to be released on bail on completing half the maximum term of imprisonment.

      5. Section 436A provides as follows:

        "436A. Maximum period for which an undertrial prisoner can be detained.- Where a person has, during the period of investigation, inquiry or trial under this Code of an offence under any law (not being an offence for which the punishment of death has been specified as one of the punishments under that law) undergone detention for a period extending up to one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for that offence under that law, he shall be released by the Court on his personal bond with or without sureties:

        Provided that the Court may, after hearing the Public Prosecutor and for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, order the continued detention of such person for a period longer than one-half of the said period or release him on bail instead of the personal bond with or without sureties:

        Provided further that no such person shall in any case be detained during the period of investigation, inquiry or trial for more than the maximum period of imprisonment provided for the said offence under that law.

        Explanation.--In computing the period of detention under this section for granting bail, the period of detention passed due to delay in proceeding caused by the accused shall be excluded."

      6. The first proviso to Section 436A stipulates that the Court may for reasons to be recorded in writing order the continued detention of the person for a period longer than one half of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for that offence or release him on bail instead of a personal bond with or without sureties.

      7. Article 17 of the Extradition Treaty between India and the UAE contains the following provision:

        "1 The perso

      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