Back
2008 Supreme(Gau) 484
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Jasti Chelameswar, C.J., Ranjan Gogoi and Brojendra Prasad Katakey, JJ.
Bamang Anthony and Anr. - Appellants
Vs.
State of Arunachal Pradesh and Ors. - Respondent
PIL No. 50 of 2004
Decided on : 02.07.2008
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: P.K. Tewari, T. Pertin and J. Purkayastha, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: A.K. Bhattacharjee, D.K. Das, H. Rahman, B. Banerjee, N. Dutta, D.K. Mishra, D. Baruah, A.M.B. Baruah, K.A. Mazumdar, N.J. Das, B. Choudhury, S.C. Biswas, H. Chanda, D. Goswami, S. Saikia, R.D. Bhuyan, K. Ali, J. Hussain, S. Jahan, R. Sharma, A.K.R. Choudhury, B.K. Kar, A. Khan, N.G. Kundu, A. Kabra, B.M. Choudhury, D. Das, K. Das, A. Das, R. Sarma, S.H. Khound, J. Choudhury, I. Laihiri, A. Lal, D. Mazumdar, S. Saikia, P.J. Saikia, D. Dey, R. Saikia, R.K. Dutta, P. Chakraborty, N. Choudhury, S.C. Keyal, S.K. Ghosh, S.P. Choudhury, P. Goswami, A. Choudhury, P.K. Das, N.J. Das, T. Siram, J. Hussain, J. Nying, A. Miza, M. Pertin, R. Hussain, G. Sutradhar, R.P. Sharma, K. Jini,A. Nath, B.K. Nath, J. Rajkumar, P.K.R. Choudhury, J. Das, N.G. Kundu, N. Choudhury, S.C. Keyal, S.K. Ghosh, S.P. Choudhury, P. Goswami, P.K.R. Choudhury, A. Choudhury, K.K. Das, T. Roy, M. Boje, D. Boje, S.S. Sharma, G. Jalan, S. Singh, N. Taje, S.K. Kejriwal and S. Kejriwal, Advs.
The importance of giving an opportunity to the Public Prosecutor and recording reasons for not giving notice, as required by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in the context of granting bail.
Headnote:
Public Distribution System - Anomalies - Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945 - Section 120(B)/420/468/409, IPC read with Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 437, Code of Criminal Procedure - Proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 437, Code of Criminal Procedure - Proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure
Fact of the Case:
Two citizens filed a PIL alleging anomalies in the public distribution system in Arunachal Pradesh. FIRs were lodged, and the SIC submitted status reports. The court considered applications for pre-arrest bail and directed the head of the SIC to place details of cases before the court. The Superintendent of Police of SIC filed an application for cancellation of bail granted to 10 accused persons, leading to a hearing and subsequent directions by the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that interim bail was granted without giving an opportunity to the Public Prosecutor, contrary to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It directed the trial court to serve copies of the bail applications to the Public Prosecutor and to decide the bail applications finally on the basis of the materials placed before it and in accordance with the law.
Issues: Granting of interim bail without giving an opportunity to the Public Prosecutor and the need for the trial court to decide the bail applications finally on the basis of materials placed before it and in accordance with the law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of giving an opportunity to the Public Prosecutor and recording reasons for not giving notice, as required by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It directed the trial court to dispose of the bail applications within a specified period after providing notice to the Public Prosecutor.
Final Decision: The court directed the trial court to serve copies of the bail applications to the Public Prosecutor and to decide the bail applications finally on the basis of the materials placed before it and in accordance with the law, within a specified period.
1. Two public spirited citizens, who are the residents of State of Arunachal Pradesh, filed the Public Interest Litigation, registered as PIL No. 50/2004, alleging gross anomalies in public distribution system in the State of Arunachal Pradesh in the form of exaggerated allotments of food grains to the PDS contractors under several scheme like SGRY; Below Poverty Line (BPR); fictitious transportations of food items to different PDS Centres of the State; sale of such food items made for public distribution system in the black market; payment of fictitious claims for transportation and that too at inflated and unjustified rate. The public interest litigants in the said petition has prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into the allegations made in the petition and to take all possible consequential actions as may be deemed fit and proper.
2. On the basis of the allegations made in the PIL, an FIR was lodged by the Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, on the basis of which Crime Branch Police Station Case No. 8/2005 has been registered. During the course of hearing of the PIL, it is also revealed that several other cases, namely Crime Branch Police Station Case Nos. 3/2005, 6/2005 and 7/2005, were registered based on the allegation of anomalies relating to public distribution system. The Special Investigation Cell (SIC) constituted for the purpose of investigating the various Police Station Cases, from time to time submitted the status reports about the progress of investigation in different such cases. In course of such deliberation, a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.8.2007, keeping in view the interest of justice, passed an order for consideration of the applications for pre-arrest bail filed under Section 438, Code of Criminal Procedure, arising out of Crime Branch P.S. Case Nos. 3/2005, 6/2005, 7/2005, 8/2005 and such cases, which have been registered in course of investigation of the alleged anomalies with regard to distribution of PDS items, by a Bench of this Court as may be nominated by the hon'ble Chief Justice. By the said order, it has further been directed that all pre-arrest bail applications that may be pending shall also stand transferred to the nominated Bench of this Court. In so far as the post bail applications are concerned, the said Division Bench of this Court, keeping in view the constitutional right of an arrested person to seek and apply for bail, allowed the competent courts to entertain the applications for post arrest bail and to pass orders thereon and further directing the head of the SIC to place before this Court the details of such cases including the orders passed by the court by submitting status report from time to time to enable the nominated Bench of this Court to exercise the power under Section439(2), Code of Criminal Procedure, if deemed necessary.
3. The Superintendent of Police of SIC (Vigilance) in course of the hearing of the PIL filed an application dated 27.9.2007 praying for cancellation of the bail granted to the following 10 (ten) accused persons by the learned Deputy Commissioner-cum-Special Judge on various dates contending inter-alia that the release of the accused persons on bail has hampered the progress of investigation as their custodial interrogation is essential:
1. Hage Batt Former Director Supply and Transport, Arunachal Pradesh, Naharlagun presently posted as Deputy Commissioner, changlang.
2. Sri Likha Maj PDS Nominee-Cum-Carriage Contractor, Naharlagun.
3. Sri Likha Saya PDS Nominee-Cum-Carriage Contractor, Nirjuli.
4. Sri Takam Pario PDS Nominee-Cum-Carriage Contractor, Itanagar.
5. Sri Gyati Koyang S.O. Office of the Director Supply & Transport, A.P. Naharlagun.
6. Sri Bijay Gupta Carriage contractor, Desali C.P.O. centre.
7. Sri Firoj Modi Former ADST, Lilabari Presently posted as Assistant Director Food and supply, Naharlagun.
8. Sri Midayang Pertin Former C.O. Desali Presentl
