2012 (2) TMI 737 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Grants Bail to MLA in Conspiracy Case, Citing Delayed Implication and Lack of Initial Evidence Involvement.

Susanta Ghosh Versus State of West Bengal

Susanta Ghosh Versus State of West Bengal - TMI Issues:Grant of bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure based on political vendetta, delay in lodging FIR against the appellant, involvement of the appellant in a criminal conspiracy leading to deaths, opposing views on the seriousness of the alleged crimes, consideration of bail parameters like tampering with evidence and absconsion, and the decision to allow bail with specific conditions.Analysis:The judgment pertains to an appeal against a High Court decision on a bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appellant, an elected Member of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly, claimed political vendetta as the reason for being named in a FIR nine years after the incident. The FIR accused him of a criminal conspiracy resulting in the deaths of seven individuals. Notably, the appellant was not named in earlier FIRs related to the same incident, and the cases from those FIRs ended in acquittal. The delay in implicating the appellant raised suspicions of motivation behind the accusations.The appellant's counsel argued that the grounds for denying bail, such as tampering with evidence or absconsion, did not apply in this case. Given the appellant's status as an MLA and former Minister, the likelihood of absconsion was deemed remote. The defense contended that the appellant had not interfered with the investigation during the nine-year gap and had previously been granted anticipatory bail without misuse. The defense also highlighted that the appellant had been acquitted in previous cases arising from the same incident.On the contrary, the prosecution vehemently opposed bail, citing the gravity of the alleged crimes, which they claimed had caused a serious law and order situation. They argued that the crimes were part of a well-conceived conspiracy led by the appellant, and witnesses had attested to his presence during the incident. The prosecution emphasized the heinous nature of the offenses and the need to maintain public order by denying bail.After considering both sides, the Supreme Court allowed the appellant's bail plea. The Court noted the absence of the appellant's name in the initial FIRs and the lack of evidence of interference with the investigation. While acknowledging the possibility of witness tampering, the Court imposed specific conditions on the appellant's bail, including restrictions on his movement and regular reporting to the police. The Court emphasized the need for the appellant's presence during the trial and directed the trial Court to ensure compliance with the imposed conditions.