Supreme Court Dismisses Petitions, Denies Anticipatory Bail

The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petitions, stating that the petitioners were not entitled to relief as there was no violation of Article 21. Anticipatory bail was denied as the petitioners were already in custody. The court allowed consolidation of cases within High Court jurisdictions and rejected the transfer of investigations to the CBI. Exemption from personal appearance was deemed at the discretion of trial courts. The petitioners were advised to seek exemptions and consolidation through appropriate legal channels.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Violation of Article 21 of the Constitution.
2. Grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. Consolidation of cases pending in different courts.
4. Transfer of investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
5. Exemption from personal appearance in court.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Violation of Article 21 of the Constitution:
The petitioners moved writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution, alleging infringement of their personal liberty under Article 21 due to prolonged incarceration without bail. Article 21 guarantees that no person shall be deprived of their personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. The court noted that the term 'personal liberty' has a broad scope and cannot be restricted without violating the constitutional mandate. However, the court found that the petitioners were in custody as per the due process of law, and thus, there was no violation of Article 21. The court emphasized that the issuance of production warrants and the petitioners' detention were in accordance with legal procedures, thereby not infringing on their constitutional rights.

2. Grant of Anticipatory Bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
The petitioners sought anticipatory bail under Section 438, CrPC, citing the orders dated 28-3-2000 and 5-5-2000 in previous writ petitions. The court examined the scope of Section 438, which is intended to prevent unnecessary harassment or disgrace due to apprehension of arrest for non-bailable offenses. The court referred to the Constitution Bench decision in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, which cautioned against blanket orders of anticipatory bail. The court concluded that anticipatory bail could not be granted to the petitioners as they were already in custody, and the provision is applicable only when there is an apprehension of arrest.

3. Consolidation of Cases Pending in Different Courts:
The petitioners requested the consolidation of multiple cases pending in different courts across various states. The court acknowledged the practical difficulties in consolidating cases from different jurisdictions, which would impose undue hardship on witnesses and investigating agencies. The court permitted the petitioners to move the appropriate High Courts for consolidating cases within their territorial jurisdiction. The court reiterated that the consolidation order would be effective only if the petitioners surrendered their passports, ensuring they would not misuse the liberty granted.

4. Transfer of Investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI):
The petitioners sought the transfer of all investigations to the CBI. The court rejected this request, citing earlier orders where similar prayers were denied. The court maintained that the existing investigating agencies were competent to handle the cases and transferring investigations to the CBI was unnecessary.

5. Exemption from Personal Appearance in Court:
The petitioners requested exemption from personal appearance in court. The court clarified that such exemptions fall within the discretion of the trial or sessions court. The petitioners were advised to apply for exemption in the concerned courts, which would decide based on the merits of each case.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petitions, stating that while a petition under Article 32 is maintainable, the petitioners were not entitled to relief due to insufficient evidence of Article 21 violations. The court allowed the petitioners to approach the High Courts for consolidation of cases and to seek exemptions from personal appearance as per the law. The court emphasized that its observations should not influence the trial courts in the ongoing cases.

---