Back
2012 Supreme(Del) 1364
High Court of Delhi
V.K. SHALI
Vijendra Rana & Another
Versus
Central Bureau Of Investigation
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 636 & 1353 OF 2010
Decided on : 11-05-2012
For the Petitioners:Ms. Nitya Ramakrishnan & A. Trideep, Ram Jethmalani, Sr. Advocate with Siddharth Aggarwal, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Dayan Krishnan, special Public Prosecutor for the CBI.
The severity of the charges alone cannot be the sole ground for denying bail, especially when the accused have been in custody for an extended period without substantial progress in the trial, and there are no allegations that the accused would not submit to the processes of law or flee.
Headnote:
Official Secrets Act - Bail Applications - Section 3 and 5 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the delay in conclusion of arguments on the question of charge and the subsequent bail applications filed by the accused. The allegations against the accused pertained to the transmission/communication of confidential and secret information pertaining to the security and sovereignty of the Navy and Air Force. The court considered the severity of the charges, the delay in the trial, and the absence of allegations that the accused would not submit to the processes of law or flee as grounds for granting bail.
Fact of the Case:
The accused filed bail applications seeking regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in relation to an FIR registered by CBI under Sections 3 and 5 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923, read with Section 120-B and 409 IPC. The accused had been in custody for over six years without substantial progress in the trial. The prosecution alleged the accused transmitted sensitive defense information, leading to their dismissal from service and subsequent CBI investigations.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the severity of the charges alone could not be the ground for denying bail, especially when the accused had been in custody for over six years without substantial progress in the trial. The court also noted the absence of allegations that the accused would not submit to the processes of law or flee. The delay in the trial and the absence of evidence tampering opportunities were also considered in granting bail.
Issues: The main issues were the delay in the trial, severity of the charges, and the absence of allegations that the accused would not submit to the processes of law or flee.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision to grant bail was based on the severity of the charges not being the sole ground for denial of bail, the accused being in custody for over six years without substantial progress in the trial, the absence of allegations that the accused would not submit to the processes of law or flee, and the absence of evidence tampering opportunities.
Final Decision: The court granted bail to the accused with specific conditions, including surrendering passports, not leaving the national capital region of Delhi without permission, not tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, attending court on every hearing date, and not creating hurdles in the extradition of another accused.
V.K. SHALI, J.
1. These two bail applications of accused Vijendra Rana and Kulbhushan Parashar, bearing Nos.636 of 2012 and 1353 of 2010 respectively, have been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking regular bail in respect of F.I.R. registered by CBI vide RC No.2(A)/2006/CBI/ACU/IX, under Sections 3 and 5 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) read with Section 120-B and 409 IPC.
2. The petitioner, Vijendra Rana (A-4), was arrested on 6.4.2006 and is in judicial custody since 19.4.2006. Similarly, the petitioner, Kulbhushan Parashar (A-1), was arrested on 5.4.2006 and is also in judicial custody from the same date. The repeated attempts by both the petitioners to get the bail, both from the court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Additional Sessions Judge as well as from the High Court, have not yielded any fruitful results. One significant order which has been passed in this regard and which is quite elaborate giving the alleged roles of each of the accused is passed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Muralidhar on 15.5.2009 in Bail Application No.65 of 2009. In the said order of rejection of bail of both the petitioners, this Court had observed as under:-
“23. This Court, however, finds merit in the submission that with three years having elapsed and no order on charge yet being passed, there is little prospect of the trial commencing and concluding at an early date. With the order passed today by this Court in Vinod Kumar Jha v. CBI (Criminal Revision Petition No.611/2008), the furnishing of documents to the accused should take place in a time bound manner and facilitate the early conclusion of arguments on charge. In the circumstances, while rejecting the prayer for released on bail, at this stage, this Court requests the trial court to expedite the hearing of the arguments on charge and pass an appropriate order thereon on or before 31st July, 2009. It will be open to the petitioner at the first instance to apply to the trial court for bail after the order on charge and the order framing charge, if any, is passed. The petitioner will also be at liberty to renew his bail application if the directions and the time limits set in the order passed by this Court today in Vinod Kumar Jha are unable for any reasons to be adhered to. In the event of the latter contingency, the delay in the progress of the trial could indeed be a strong factor which should weigh with the trial court while considering the question of grant of bail. Such bail application will be decided on its own merits by the trial court uninfluenced by the opinion expressed in the present order.
24. For the aforementioned reasons, this Court does not find merit in this application and it is dismissed as such.”
3. The sum and substance of the aforesaid order was that the concern expressed by the Court in delay in conclusion of the arguments on the question of charge and consequently, setting down the time limit of framing of charge by 31.7.2009 and in the event of that time limit not being adhered to, permitting the petitioners to file a fresh application for grant of bail before the trial court.
4. I have been informed by both the learned senior counsel for the petitioners as well as learned standing counsel for the CBI that as on date, charges against the petitioners are yet to be framed and the subsequent bail applications filed by both the accused persons were also rejected by the learned trial judge which were filed in pursuance to the orders passed by this court referred to hereinabove. It is these rejections orders passed by the learned trial court on 25.10.2008, 3.2.2009 and 30.4.2010 that has necessitated filling of the fresh bail applications by both the petitioners before this court which are under consideration. Unfortunately, these two applications have also been pending before this court for the last more than two years for one reason or the other.
5. It may be pertinent here to ment
