2020 (8) TMI 252 - SCH - Indian Laws

Supreme Court clarifies bail conditions for respondent No.2, stresses trial independence.

RELIGARE FINVEST LTD. Versus STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the bail granted to respondent No.2 but imposed two additional conditions: depositing the passport and ... Grant of Bail - impugned judgment is incorrect or contrary to record - HELD THAT:- Although, the petitioner may be justified in relying upon documents brought on record to indicate that the finding of fact noted by the High Court in the impugned judgment is incorrect or contrary to record even so, taking overall view of the matter, we decline to interfere with the order granting bail to respondent No.2. However, at least, two additional conditions be imposed on respondent No.2, in addition to the conditions specified in paragraph 39 of the impugned judgment of the High Court for grant of bail - First, the respondent No.2 shall forthwith deposit his passport with the Investigating Officer and not later than one week from today - The second aspect is to clarify that the finding recorded by the High Court on certain factual aspects shall not come in the way of the prosecution and the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the same at the time of trial. The Trial Court shall, however, decide the matter on the basis of evidence brought on record by the concerned parties. SLP disposed off. Issues involved: Grant of bail, additional conditions for bail, influence of High Court's findings on trial, use of bail order as precedent for other accused.Grant of Bail:The Supreme Court granted permission to file a Special Leave Petition and heard arguments from both parties. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's reliance on documents to challenge the High Court's finding but ultimately decided not to interfere with the bail granted to respondent No.2. The Court took an overall view of the matter before making this decision.Additional Conditions for Bail:While declining to interfere with the bail order, the Court agreed with the State's submission to impose two additional conditions on respondent No.2. Firstly, respondent No.2 was directed to immediately deposit his passport with the Investigating Officer within one week. Secondly, the Court clarified that certain factual findings by the High Court should not influence the prosecution during the trial. The Trial Court was instructed to base its decision solely on the evidence presented during the trial.Influence of High Court's Findings on Trial:The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court's findings on factual aspects should not impact the prosecution's case during the trial. The Trial Court was directed to independently assess the evidence presented by the parties without being swayed by the High Court's findings.Use of Bail Order as Precedent for Other Accused:The Court explicitly stated that the observations in the bail order were specific to respondent No.2 and should not be considered as a precedent for other accused individuals. Each co-accused should have their cases evaluated based on their own merits, separate from the considerations in this particular bail order.Conclusion:The Special Leave Petition was disposed of accordingly, and any pending applications were also resolved. The judgment highlighted the specific conditions imposed on respondent No.2 for bail, the importance of independent trial proceedings, and the limited applicability of the bail order to other accused individuals.