2020 Supreme(Gau) 660

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Nani Tagia, J.
State Of Arunachal Pradesh - Appellant
Versus
Sode Potom - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1 of 2020
Decided On : 14-12-2020

The High Court has the power to cancel bail granted to an accused under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, if the court granting bail ignores the relevant material indicating prima facie involvement of the accused or takes into consideration the irrelevant materials which would have no relevance to the grant of bail to the accused.

Headnote:

BAIL - CANCELLATION - GROUNDS - RELEVANCE OF MATERIALS - CONSIDERATION OF IRRELEVANT MATERIALS - POWER OF HIGH COURT - SECTIONS 409, 468, 120(B) IPC, SECTION 13(2) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988, SECTION 439(2) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973.

Fact of the Case:

The State filed an application under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking cancellation of the impugned bail order passed in B.A. No. 77(ANJ)/2020, arising out of SIC(Vig) Case No. 10/2020, under Sections 409/468/120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The accused was arrested on 30.05.2020 and granted bail on 04.06.2020 by the learned Special Judge, Tezu. The State contended that the learned Special Judge, Tezu, had failed to take into account the prima-facie evidence on record against the accused and that considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the learned Special Judge, Tezu, failed to take into account the fact that though the accused was altogether remanded to 4 days Police custody but out of the 4 days, 2 days were spent in taking back the accused from Tezu to Itanagar and vice versa. Therefore, the accused practically spent only 2(two) days in custody of the Investigating Agency, which was quite inadequate to properly investigate in a case of this nature.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the learned Special Judge, Tezu, while passing the bail order, dated 04.06.2020, have failed to take into account, the relevant materials indicating prima-facie involvement of the respondent/accused persons Sode Potom as well as Cholingso Kora; the gravity of the offence alleged, may also be noticed by making a reference to a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2019 9 SCC 24, wherein, in Paragraphs No. 80 and 81, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed, as under: 80. Observing that economic offence is committed with deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless to the consequence to the community, in State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal and others, (1987) 2 SCC 364, it was held as under:- 5. .....The entire community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to book. A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the community. A disregard for the interest of the community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the community in the system to administer justice in an even-handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the national economy and national interest. 81. Observing that economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with different approach in the matter of bail, in Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 439, the Supreme Court held as under:- 34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country. 35. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations.

Issues: 1. Whether the learned Special Judge, Tezu, had failed to take into account the prima-facie evidence on record against the accused? 2. Whether the learned Special Judge, Tezu, had failed to take into account the nature and gravity of the offence?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the learned Special Judge, Tezu, while passing the bail order, dated 04.06.2020, have failed to take into account, the relevant materials indicating prima-facie involvement of the respondent/accused persons Sode Potom as well as Cholingso Kora. 2. The Court held that the gravity of the offence alleged, may also be noticed by making a reference to a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2019 9 SCC 24, wherein, in Paragraphs No. 80 and 81, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with different approach in the matter of bail.

Final Decision: The Court allowed the criminal misc. application and cancelled the bail granted to the respondent/accused Sode Potom by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Eastern Division-cum-Special Judge at Tezu, Lohit District, arising out of SIC(Vig) Case No. 10/2020, under Sections 409/468/120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in B.A. No. 77(ANJ)/2020.