Court clarified conditions for bail grants emphasizing victim safety and trial integrity based on established legal principles and prior case law.

JUDGEMENT

VIKRAM NATH, J. 1. Special leave to appeal Criminal No. 3482 of 2023 has been filed by the victim (redacted as XXX) assailing the correctness of the order Digitally signed by Neetu Khajuria Date: 2023.08.24 16:21:09 IST Reason:

Signature Not Verified dated 20th February, 2023 passed by the Calcutta High Court Circuit Bench at Port Blair granting bail to respondent no. 2 (Jitendra Narain), Ex-Chief Secretary of Andaman and Nicobar Islands for offences u/s 376(D)/ 228A/ 506/ 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 18601.

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 5099 of 2023 has been preferred by the State/Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands for the same relief as claimed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 3482 of 2023. Further Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 5131 of 2023 has been filed by the State/Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands assailing the correctness of the order dated 22nd February, 2023 passed by the Calcutta High Court granting bail to the sole respondent (Sandeep Singh alias Rinku), co- accused arising out of the same FIR. Lastly, Special Leave Petition (Crl.)No. 5192 of 2023 has been filed by State-Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands assailing the order dated 22nd February, 2023 granting bail 1 IPC to sole respondent (Rishishwar Lal Rishi) another co-accused from the same FIR. The orders dated 22nd February, 2023 are primarily based on the ground of parity as bail has been granted to the alleged main accused Jitendra Narain on 20th February 2023.

2. We have heard learned counsels for the victim- petitioner, the State-Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands and the three accused/respondents.

3. As the main order has been passed in the case of Jitendra Narain on 20th February, 2023, at the outset, the same is being referred to. The Division Bench of the High Court considered the brief facts and thereafter noted that any reference made on the submissions relating to the evidence collected during investigation and the various pleas raised on behalf of the accused, could materially affect the trial, and accordingly, did not deal with the same. The High Court specifically noted this aspect in the following words:

“We do not want to discuss all these materials in detail because that may influence the trial and merit of the case and it has also potency to prejudice the accused and in some manner to the prosecution also.”

4. The High Court further noted that as the accused Jitendra Narain, an IAS officer has already been transferred to Delhi, if some stringent conditions are put, the petitioner (Respondent No.2 herein) would not be in a position to influence any of the witnesses in the Islands. The Division Bench also noticed that Jitendra Narain being in service, there would be no chance of him absconding. The Court further noticed that there was no material to impress that in case he was released, he would influence the witnesses or there would be any danger of justice being thwarted. On such considerations, the Division Bench proceeded to grant bail, subject to the following five conditions being imposed in addition to the terms and conditions that would be imposed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate:

“1) The petitioner shall not visit the Andaman & Nicobar Islands except for the purpose of attending the trial on proper receipt of notice from the Trial Court.

2) He shall not keep any contact with any person or official of these Islands by Phone or by any other mode of communication during the currency of this order.

3) He shall not threaten, induce or coerce any witness of the case in any manner. Whatsoever, during the currency of this order by any means of communication.

4) He shall not leave the Union of India except on the permission by the competent authority of the Un