2006 Supreme(SC) 1128

2006(8) Supreme 874
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Patna High Court)
S.B. Sinha & Markandey Katju, JJ.
Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav - Appellant
versus
C.B.I. through its Director - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1172 of 2006
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2327 of 2006)
Decided on 16-11-2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : R.K. Jain, Sr. Advocate, Rakesh Kumar Singh, Durgesh Kr. Pandey, Prem Malhotra, J. John and V. Senthil Kumar, Advocates.
For the Respondent : A. Sharan, A.S.G., P.S. Mishra, Sr. Advocate, Amit Anaand Tiwari, P. Parmeshwaran and Amit Pawan, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
There is no absolute rule that because a long period of imprisonment had expired, bail must necessarily be granted.

Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 439 - Bail - Appellant was accused in a case u/s. 302/34/120-B I.P.C. and was in custody for more than 5 years - All prosecution witnesses had been examined and case had reached examination of witnesses by accused in defence - No unconditional rule about when bail should be granted by Court - No rule that because a long period of imprisonment had expired, bail must necessarily be granted - Balance has to be struck between right to individual liberty and interest of society - Fact that appellant had been Member of Parliament on four occasions was wholly irrelevant - It was triple murder case committed in broad day light with sophisticated weapons - Conduct of accused was noted while rejecting his earlier bail application - Not a case for grant of bail to appellant - Trial Court however directed to expedite trial.

       Held : In our opinion none of the aforesaid decisions can be said to have laid down any absolute and unconditional rule about when bail should be granted by the Court and when it should not. It all depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and it cannot be said there is any absolute rule that because a long period of imprisonment has expired bail must necessarily be granted.(Para 10)

       We are of the opinion that while it is true that Article 21 is of great importance because it enshrines the fundamental right to individual liberty, but at the same time a balance has to be struck between the right to individual liberty and the interest of society. No right can be absolute, and reasonable restrictions can be placed on them. While it is true that one of the considerations in deciding whether to grant bail to an accused or not is whether he has been in jail for a long time, the Court has also to take into consideration other facts and circumstances, such as the interest of the society.(Para 18)

       It has been stated that the appellant has been a Member of Parliament on four occasions. In our opinion, this is wholly irrelevant. The law is no respecter of persons, and is the same for every one.(Para 19)

       A perusal of the FIR itself shows that it is a triple murder case, and the incident was committed in broad day light with sophisticated weapons. It is true that the appellant was not named in the FIR, but it has come in the statement before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of one Ranjan Tiwari that he and other assailants had been hired by the appellant to commit this ghastly crime.(Para 20)

       We are not inclined to comment on the veracity or otherwise of the statement of Ranjan Tiwari and other witnesses as it may influence the trial, but looking at the allegations against the appellant both in the statement of Ranjan Tiwari and other witnesses, we are of the opinion on the facts and circumstances of the case, that this is certainly not a case for grant of bail to the appellant, particularly since the prosecution witnesses have been examined and now the defence witnesses alone have to be examined. It would, in our opinion, be wholly inappropriate to grant bail when not only the investigation is over but even the trial is partly over, and the allegations against the appellant are serious.(Para 21)

       The conduct of the appellant as noted in the decision in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav & Anr. 2005(3) SCC 284 (quoted above), is also such that we are not inclined to exercise our discretion under Article 136 for granting bail to the appellant.(Para 22)

       Learned counsel for the appellant then submitted that since the appellant is not on bail, he cannot conduct his defence effectively. In our opinion if this argument is to be accepted, then logically in every case bail has to be granted. We cannot accept such a contention.(Para 25)

       On the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no merit in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. We, however, make it clear that no further application for bail will be considered in this case by any Court, as already a large number of bail applications have been rejected earlier, both by the High Court and this Court.(Para 26)

       While we dismiss this appeal, we direct that the trial court shall ensure that the defence witnesses are examined on a day-to-day basis in accordance with a fixed time schedule so that the trial is completed as expeditiously as possible and the judgment is delivered soon thereafter.(Para 27)