Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) 1031 2000
PETITIONER:
STATE, C.B.I./S.P.E., NEW DELHI
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
PAL SINGH & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28/11/2000
BENCH:
R.P.Sethi, K.T.Thomas
JUDGMENT:
L.....I.........T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J
THOMAS, J.
Leave granted. The order of the High Court now under
challenge is one of granting bail to some of the accused
persons. On a perusal of the facts alleged against the
accused we thought, at the time of admission of the special
leave, that impugned order was susceptible to certain
consequences and hence we suspended the operation of the
said order on 23.7.1999 and directed the respondents accused
to be put back in jail. But despite the efforts adopted by
us to have the trial of the case progressing and reaching
its logical conclusion it is a stark irony that the trial
has not even begun yet. Neither the prosecution nor the
defence could make even a guess as to when the trial could
possibly commence, much less end. In such a situation of
compounded uncertainty the respondents who were arrested in
connection with this case way back in August 1996, cannot
justifiably be detained in jail as under-trial prisoners,
despite all the ostensible serious features of the crime
delineated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
The incidents which gave rise to this bail matter
happened on 13.9.1992 when a sitting MLA of the U.P. Vidhan
Sabha (Mahendra Singh Bhatti) and another person (Uday
Prakash Arya) were gunned down by armed assailants in the
sight of the onlookers at a busy locality. In the same
shoot-out certain other persons were also injured, some very
badly. But the local police could not achieve any tangible
progress in investigation and hence the CBI was entrusted
with the task.
The CBI arrested the two respondents on 18.6.1996 (as
per their version, but respondents put a different date as
for their arrest). One AK-47 rifle and one SLR were
recovered from the respondents. The ballistic expert, after
testing the rifles and the bullets recovered from the dead
body, sent up a report that the bullets were fired from the
same rifles. The CBI completed the investigation and laid
the charge-sheet on 7.10.1996 alleging that seven named
persons (including the two respondents) and some others
(whose identity is not known yet) hatched a conspiracy to
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
murder Mahendra Singh Bhatti on account of political rivalry
with one D.P. Yadav (another MLA of U.P.). Pursuant to the
said conspiracy the murders were committed by the
respondents.
On 1.2.1999 a Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court
granted bail to the respondents solely on the ground that
recovery of the fire arms was made only 4 years after the
murders. We suspended the operation of the said order
mainly on account of our thinking that bail in murder cases
should not be granted merely on the ground of delay in
recovery of the weapons. However, when we were told that
the case could not be proceeded with even now, we cannot
permit such a hibernating uncertainty to be a sufficient
ground for detaining a person as an under-trial prisoner
endlessly. The case remains where it reached 4 years ago,
but respondents are not in any manner responsible for the
aforesaid torpid situation. Among the remaining accused
D.P. Yadav and Karan Yadav have not been arrested even till
the date of the impugned order, nor could the trial court
proceed with the trial as the case was not even committed to
the sessions court.
The Superintendent of CBI informed this Court through
an affidavit that the said two accused (D.P. Yadav and
Karan Yadav) could not be arrested because the Allahabad
High Court ordered stay of all further proceedings in the
case when two writ petitions were filed before that High
Court in 1996. To ascertain the truth of the situation this
Court directed the Registrar of the High Court to report to
us regarding the stage of the said writ petitions. On
13.3.2000 the Registrar of the Allahabad High Court reported
to this Court that learned single judge of the High Court
heard arguments in the writ petitions on 5.2.1998, but
judgment was not yet pronounced.
On 31.3.2000 we gave expression to our distress that
on account of the delay in pronouncing judgment in the writ
petitions after granting stay of further proceedings, the
accused who were in jail had to continue to languish during
pre-conviction period. However, the Registrar of the High
Court later reported to this Court that the single judge of
the High Court had disposed of the writ petitions
subsequently. We then thought that the dusk was clear for
the trial to proceed. But then it was submitted by the
learned senior counsel for CBI himself that even now the
case could not progress due to certain other odds. He also
admitted that the present respondents are not in any manner
responsible for such odds.
In the light of the aforementioned circumstances any
further detention of the respondents as under-trial
prisoners would be a travesty of justice to the respondents.
We, therefore, dismiss this appeal by not interfering with
that part of the impugned order allowing the respondents to
be released on bail. However, we deem it necessary that
Sessions Judge should impose conditions on the respondents,
before they are released, for ensuring that respondents
would not tamper with the evidence or intimidate or
influence any of the witnesses for prosecution and that the
respondents would unfailingly attend the court on the
posting dates. We leave it to the Sessions Judge to impose
such conditions as he deems fit for the above purpose.
With these observations we dispose of this appeal.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3