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

1984 Supreme(Del) 327

High Court Of Delhi
PREM CHAND - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
CRI.MISC. 819 of 1984
Decided On : 11/30/1984

Advocates Appeared:
D.C.MATHUR, Gurvinder Singh, I.U.KHAN, Rajesh Harnal, Satinder Singh, T.L.GARG

The High Court has inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to release an approver during the course of the trial if it is in the ends of justice and his detention amounts to an abuse of process of Court.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 306(4)(B) - BAIL TO APPROVER - CONSTITUTIONALITY - INHERENT POWERS OF HIGH COURT - ABUSE OF PROCESS OF COURT - SECTION 482 - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, an approver in two bank robbery cases, sought bail after his statement was recorded by the Sessions Court. The accused opposed the release, and the State did not appear to contest the petition. The petitioner argued that his continued detention was an abuse of process of court and violative of his fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, 21, and 22 of the Constitution.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the provisions of Section 306(4)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which mandates the detention of an approver until the termination of the trial, are constitutional. However, the Court also held that the High Court has inherent powers under Section 482 to release an approver during the course of the trial if it is in the ends of justice and his detention amounts to an abuse of process of Court.

Issues: 1. Whether the provisions of Section 306(4)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code are constitutionally valid? 2. Whether the High Court has inherent powers to release an approver during the course of the trial? 3. Whether the petitioner's continued detention was an abuse of process of court?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court interpreted Section 306(4)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code to mean that an approver who is not on bail at the time of the grant of pardon must be detained in custody until the termination of the trial. The Court held that this provision is constitutional as it serves the purpose of protecting the approver from the wrath of his confederates and preventing him from resiling from the terms of the grant of pardon. 2. The Court held that the High Court has inherent powers under Section 482 to release an approver during the course of the trial if it is in the ends of justice and his detention amounts to an abuse of process of Court. The Court found that the petitioner's continued detention was an abuse of process of court as his evidence had already been recorded and there was no likelihood of him resiling from the terms of the grant of pardon.

Final Decision: The Court directed the release of the petitioner on bail, subject to his furnishing a bond for Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount in each of the cases.

D. R. KHANNA, J.

( 1 ). ON a reference being made by the single Judge for consideration of the propriety of grant of bail to an approver who has been now in detention for over two years, and whose statement has already been recorded by the Sessions Court, this matter has come before the Full Bench. The entire background has been given in the order of the single Judge, reference to which is advisable for resolving the controversy involved.

( 2 ) IT is, however, unfortunate that at the time of the hearing before the Full Bench, none appeared from the side of the State. This has been in spite of the notice having been served upon the Attorney General, since the constitutional validity of the provisions contained in S. 306 (4) (b) of the Criminal P. C. has been assailed. Appearance was made on behalf of the accused only, and they contested the release of the approver during the trial as had been done before the single Judge.

( 3 ) THE brief background is that three persons, Satinder Singh, Gurvinder Singh and Sarvjeet Singh are being tried in the Court of Session in two separate cases under Ss. 394, 397, 342 and 34 IPC. They are as a result of two bank robberies committed in the months of June and September, 1981 in New Delhi. The same set of accused was said to be involved in each of the robberies. Prem Chand, petitioner, was also taken into custody in both the cases in April, 1982, but he has turned approver on being granted pardon. No material progress, however, has taken place in any of the cases, although charges were framed in mid 1983. So far the evidence of the approver only has been recorded and in one of the cases, one further witness was examined. There are said to be about 100 witnesses in each case. Earlier in Criminal Misc. (Main) No. 525 of 1983, G. C. Jain, J. had directed on 11-7-1983 that the cases would be fixed for recording of evidence at least three days in a week, and every possible effort should be made to expedite their disposal. However, in spite of that, there appears to be no early possibility of conclusion of trials. The petitioner s grievance is that although formally the hearings used to be fixed thrice a week, they often were of short durations as the accused persons have been delaying the expeditious disposal.

( 4 ) AT present the accused are on bail for short durations because of special reason. Similar bails were allowed to them earlier too at one time or the other. The petitioner too was allowed interim bail for a shortwhile once.

( 5 ) THE petitioner contends that in his deposition, he has made a full and true disclosure of the whole of the circumstances within his knowledge, relating to the offence and to every other person concerned in both the cases and thus has duly complied with the grant of pardon. He, therefore, seeks that he should be released on bail as he has already suffered detention for about 2 years. This has been opposed before us by the accused.

( 6 ) SECTION 306 of the Cr. P. C. makes provision for tender of pardon to an accomplice. It is provided that with a view to obtaining the evidence of any person supposed to have been directly or indirectly concerned in or privy to an offence to which this section applies, the Chief Judicial Magistrate or a Metropolitan Magistrate at any stage of the investigation or inquiry into or the trial of the offence may tender a pardon to such person on condition of his making a full and true disclosure of the whole of the circumstances within his knowledge relative to the offence and to every other person concerned, whether as principal or abettor, in the commission thereof. Sub-sec. (4) of this Section next reads as under : -

" (4) Every person accepting a tender of pardon made under sub-sec. (1) - (a) shall be examined as a witness in the court of the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence and in the subsequent trial, if any; (b) shall, unless he is already on bail, be detained in custody until the termination of the trial. "

( 7 ) UNDER S.



















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