( 1 ) THE apprehension of the petitioner is that the moment he will appear in the court of learned Special judge, he will, be taken into custody as the learned special Judge as a matter of practice is taking everybody into custody against whom CBI files challan by way of rejecting the bail application. An instance cited is of co-accused Dr. Bhawna Doshi whose bail application was dismissed on the date she appeared in the court of learned Special Judge and was taken in custody on the same day. Bail application of Dr. Bhawna doshi was rejected on the ground that there is reasonable possibility of her trying to influence the witnesses if she is enlarged on bail.

( 2 ) HOWEVER, co-accused Dr. Bhawna Doshi was granted bail by this court on 8. 4. 2o02. The only allegation against her was that she had arranged air tickets for the petitioner and his family members. For this offence, the learned Special Judge rejected her bail application by a lengthy order. It was only in view of the nature of allegations that this court granted bail to her vide order dated 8. 4. 2002.

( 3 ) THE manner in which the learned Special Judge dealt with the bail application of the co-accused shows that evidence was documentary whereas he rejected the bail by referring to cacophony of likelihood of tampering of witnesses by her. This is highly myopic and unwarranted approach while dealing with liberty of a person.

( 4 ) MR. DINESH Mathur, learned senior counsel for the petitioner states at the Bar that this particular special Judge has not granted bail to any of such accused who has appeared at the time of filing of challan by CBI in spite of the fact that CBI did not take such accused into custody. If it is so, the apprehension of the petitioner is not at all misplaced.

( 5 ) OVERRIDING considerations in granting bail as laid down by the Supreme Court in Gurcharan Singh and others Vs State, AIR 1978 SC 179 are the nature and gravity of the circumstances in which the offence is committed; the position and the status of the accused with reference to the victim and the witnesses; the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice; of repeating the offences of jeopardising his own life being faced with a prim prospect of possible conviction in the case; of tampering with the witnesses; the history of the case as well as of its investigation and other relevant grounds.

( 6 ) IT was observed by the Supreme Court that two paramount considerations namely likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and his tampering with the prosecution witnesses relate to ensure the fair trial of the case and therefore it is essential that due and proper weightage should be bestowed on these two factors apart from others.

( 7 ) DOWN the lines and over the period, the Supreme court emphasised the value of personal liberty and its deprivation by way of refusal of bail. The celebrated judgment is Babu Singh and others Vs. The State of uttar Pradesh AIR 1978 SC 527. The observations of the Supreme Court are pithy and quote worthy. These are as under:-

"personal liberty deprived when bail is refused, is too precious a value of our constitutional system recognised under art. 21 that the crucial power to negate it is a great trust exercisable, not casually but judicially, with lively concern for the cost to the individual and the community. To glamorise impressionistic orders as discretionary may, on occasions, make a litigative gamble decisive of a fundamental right. After all, personal liberty of an accused or convict is fundamental, suffering lawful eclipse only in terms of procedure established by law . So deprivation of personal freedom, ephemeral or enduring, must be founded on the most serious considerations, relevant to the welfare objectives of society, specified in the constitution.

( 8 ) IN Gudikanti Narasimhulu and others Vs. Public prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1978 SC. 429, the Supreme Court went to the extent that bail should not be refused unless firstly i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document