2006 (11) TMI 690 - SC - Indian Laws

Bail Denied: Serious Charges and Conduct in Jail Justify Continued Detention; Trial to Be Expedited, No More Bail Appeals.

Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav Versus CBI through its Director

The SC dismissed the appellant's bail appeal, underscoring the gravity of the charges and the appellant's conduct while incarcerated. Despite the ... Murder - Application for bail rejected - 4th term Member of Parliament (Lok Sabha) - Guilty of the charges of offence u/s 302/34/120B IPC r/w Section 27 of the Arms Act - no prima facie evidence - HELD THAT:- 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. 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. 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 u/s 164 CrPC of one Ranjan Tiwari that he and other assailants had been hired by the appellant to commit this ghastly crime. 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. The conduct of the appellant as noted in the decision in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav & anr.[2005 (2) TMI 883 - SUPREME COURT], is also such that we are not inclined to exercise our discretion under Article 136 for granting bail to the appellant. Thus, 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. Issues Involved:1. Repeated Denial of Bail2. Long Period of Incarceration3. Conduct and Behavior of the Appellant4. Legal Precedents and Principles for Granting Bail5. Rights under Article 21 of the Constitution6. Completion of Trial and Examination of WitnessesDetailed Analysis:1. Repeated Denial of Bail:The appellant's application for bail was dismissed by the Patna High Court, which directed the trial court to expedite the trial. The appellant had previously been denied bail on multiple occasions by both the High Court and the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court's last order emphasized the need to expedite the trial and allowed the appellant to renew the bail application if the trial was not completed within six months.2. Long Period of Incarceration:The appellant argued that he had been in custody for more than six years and should be released on bail. The counsel cited the principle that prolonged incarceration without trial completion could violate Article 21 of the Constitution. However, the court noted that the mere fact of long incarceration does not automatically entitle an accused to bail, especially in serious cases.3. Conduct and Behavior of the Appellant:The appellant's conduct while in custody was scrutinized. The court noted instances where the appellant allegedly misused his position, such as unauthorized visits and interactions with criminals while in jail. These actions indicated a lack of respect for the rule of law and contributed to the decision to deny bail.4. Legal Precedents and Principles for Granting Bail:The court referenced several legal precedents, including Babu Singh & Ors vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Kashmira Singh vs. State of Punjab, which discuss the importance of personal liberty and the conditions under which bail should be granted. However, the court emphasized that these precedents do not establish an absolute rule for granting bail and that each case must be judged on its specific facts and circumstances.5. Rights under Article 21 of the Constitution:The appellant's counsel repeatedly invoked Article 21, arguing that prolonged detention without trial completion violated the appellant's right to personal liberty. The court acknowledged the importance of Article 21 but stressed the need to balance individual rights with societal interests. The court concluded that reasonable restrictions could be placed on personal liberty, especially in serious criminal cases.6. Completion of Trial and Examination of Witnesses:The court noted that all prosecution witnesses had been examined and cross-examined, and only the defense witnesses remained to be examined. The appellant's counsel argued that examining 60-70 defense witnesses would take a long time, but the court found this insufficient to grant bail. The court directed the trial court to ensure that defense witnesses are examined on a day-to-day basis to expedite the trial.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the charges and the appellant's conduct. The court directed the trial court to expedite the examination of defense witnesses and complete the trial as soon as possible. The court also stated that no further bail applications would be considered in this case by any court.