Full Judgment Text
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 328-331 OF 2020
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 1631-1634 of 2020)
(Diary No. 43544 of 2019)
MOTAMARRI APPANNA VEERRAJU @ MAV RAJU Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
These appeals take exception to the judgment(s) and
order(s) dated 15.05.2019, 05.08.2019, 25.09.2019 and
27.11.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Calcutta in C.R.M. No.6471 of 2018 granting interim
protection to the appellant during the pendency of the
bail application which was filed in August, 2018 in
connection with offence punishable under Sections
384/385/389/119/403/120B/411/467/468/471/409 IPC and
Signature Not Verified
13(1)(c)/13(1)(d)/13(1)(3) r/w 13(2) Prevention of
Digitally signed by
ARJUN BISHT
Date: 2020.02.20
21:10:36 IST
Reason:
Corruption Act, 1988.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
2
For the nature of order that we propose to pass, it
is unnecessary to dilate on the factual matrix of the
case, except to observe that the investigation in
connection with F.I.R. No. 27 of 2018, Daspur Police
Station has already progressed and is at an advance stage
of completion, as can be discerned from the chargesheet
dated 28.06.2018 and supplementary chargesheet dated
24.08.2019 qua the appellant before this court.
The Sessions Court rejected the bail application
filed by the appellant whereafter the appellant filed
regular bail application before the High Court in August,
2018. Instead of finally disposing of the said bail
application with promptitude, the High Court for the
reasons, which are not clear to us, chose to grant
interim relief to the appellant vide order dated
01.10.2018 and continued that protection until this day.
The order dated 01.10.2018 reads thus: -
“...Accordingly, we direct that the petitioner
shall be released on interim bail upon furnishing
bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with
two sureties of like amount, one of whom shall be
local, to the satisfaction of the learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghatal,
Paschim Medinipore, on condition that the he shall
not leave the jurisdiction of municipal limits of
city of Kolkata until further orders except with
the permission of this Court and on condition that
he shall provide the address where he shall
3
presently reside to the investigating officer as
well as the trial court and on further condition
he shall meet the investigating agency one in a
week until further orders. He shall not intimate
the witnesses and/or tamper with evidence in any
manner whatsoever and he shall appear before the
trial court on every date of hearing and in the
event he fails to do so, his bail shall stand
automatically cancelled without further reference
to this Court.
th
Interim bail shall continue till 30 November,
2018 or until further orders, whichever is
earlier. Matter will appear for further hearing
th
on 26 November, 2018.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if
applied for, be delivered to the learned advocates
for the parties, upon compliance of usual
formalities.”
As aforesaid, the High Court for some reason kept the
bail application pending from August, 2018 and instead
passed successive interim orders until 23.11.2019, which
are referred to above.
The last attempt made by the appellant was for
modification of the interim order passed on 01.10.2018.
That prayer, however, was answered against the appellant
as a result of which the appellant rushed to this court
by way of the present appeal.
In the facts of the present case, instead of deciding
the limited issue about modification of interim order
passed by the High Court, in the interest of justice, we
deem it appropriate to dispose of the main bail
4
application filed by the appellant, vide this order. We
are conscious that such a course should be ordinarily
eschewed but being convinced about the peculiar fact
situation of this case, that approach would meet the ends
of justice.
At the outset, we record our displeasure about the
manner in which the bail application filed in August,
2018 has remained pending before the High Court until
this day and only interim orders have been passed thereon
from time to time as referred to above. We have no
hesitation in observing that adopting such a course, that
too, by a constitutional Court, is wholly unfathomable
and must be eschewed. For, the application for bail or
anticipatory bail is a matter of moment for the accused
and protracted hearing thereof may also cause prejudice
to the investigation and affect the prosecution interests
which cannot be comprehended in this order. Such
application needs to be dealt with expeditiously and
finally, one way or the other and cannot brook delay.
It is not necessary for us to go into the question as
to who is responsible for the situation but, at the same
time, we need to deprecate the course or process followed
in the present case. We say no more.
5
Be that as it may, to do complete justice in the
matter, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the main
bail application pending before the High Court since
August, 2018 in terms of this order by modifying the
conditions predicated in the interim order(s) and which
had enured in favour of the appellant since 01.10.2018,
in the peculiar facts of the present case.
We are conscious of the fact that co-accused, whose
bail application was rejected by the High Court, had
approached this court and his Special Leave Petition
being SLP (Crl.) No. 10310 of 2019 has been dismissed by
this court on 09.12.2019. However, that order itself
makes it clear that even that accused is free to approach
the concerned Court after expiry of six months’ time, for
bail.
In our opinion, rejection of bail application of the
co-accused ought not to come in the way of the appellant
herein, who, as aforesaid, was granted interim protection
by the High Court vide interim order on 01.10.2018 and
which arrangement has been continued till now without any
adverse report against him, including of having jumped
any condition imposed by the High Court.
The only question is about the nature of conditions
6
to be imposed to ensure that the further investigation,
if any, against the appellant can be conducted in a fair
manner and also the trial against the appellant is not
affected either way.
Accordingly, after hearing both the sides, we deem it
appropriate to dispose of the bail application filed by
the appellant on the following terms:
1. The appellant shall furnish bail bond in the sum
of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Lakh only) with
two sureties of the like amount, one of whom shall be
local resident, to the satisfaction of the Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghatal, Paschim
Medinipore.
2. The appellant shall not travel outside India
without prior permission of this Court.
3. The appellant shall not enter Paschim Medinipore
District except for attending the proceedings pending
against him in the concerned court, with prefix and
suffix of one day.
4. The appellant shall forthwith furnish his
ordinary place of residence to the Investigating
Officer, if there is any change from the one already
furnished by him in terms of this order.
7
5. The passport of the appellant already deposited
by him shall remain in the custody of CID, West
Bengal.
6. The appellant shall not intimidate the witnesses
and/or tamper with the prosecution evidence in any
manner whatsoever and he shall appear before the
trial court on every date of hearing and in the event
he fails to do so, his bail shall stand automatically
cancelled without further reference to this Court,
unless his presence has been expressly exempted by
the Court in advance, for reasons to be recorded
therefor.
7. The appellant shall report to the Investigating
Officer on first Monday of every English Calendar
month between 10 a.m. to 12 noon; and on such other
days and time as may be required by the Investigating
Officer for the purpose of investigation, provided 48
hours advance notice is given to the appellant in
that behalf.
8. The bail application filed by the appellant in
the High Court being CRM No. 6471 of 2018 stands
disposed of in terms of this order.
The appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
8
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
…...................J
(A.M. KHANWILKAR)
…...................J
(DINESH MAHESHWARI)
New Delhi
February 20, 2020
9
ITEM NO.43 COURT NO.7 SECTION II-B
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) D. No(s). 43544/2019
MOTAMARRI APPANNA VEERRAJU @ MAV RAJU Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondent(s)
(IA No. 5118/2020 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING
IA No. 5119/2020 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE
DEFECTS
IA No. 5121/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT
IA No. 5120/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 5122/2020 - PERMISSION TO FILE SYNOPSIS AND LIST OF DATES)
Date : 20-02-2020 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI
For Appellant(s)
Mr. Neeraj Kishal Kaul, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Vinay Navare, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Gaurav Bhargav, Adv.
Mr. Sameer Kumar, AOR
Mr. Varun Mathur , Adv.
Mr. Bhuwan Mishra, Adv.
Ms. Niharika, Adv.
Mr. Sharukh Ahmed, Adv.
Ms. Nidhi Sahai, Adv.
For Respondent(s)
Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Suhaan Mukerji, Adv.
Mr. Vishal Prasad, Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Manchanda, Adv.
Ms. Mehak Jaggi, Adv.
Mr. Aryan Dev Uniyal, Adv.
Mr. Ankit Dhawan, Adv.
Mr. Amit Verma, Adv.
Ms. Kajal Dalal, Adv.
Ms. Mehak Jaggi, Adv.
M/S. PLR Chambers And Co., AOR
10
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
The appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed order.
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(DEEPAK SINGH) (VIDYA NEGI)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
[Signed order is placed on the file]