Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. OF 2022
(Arising from SLP(Criminal) Nos.8008-8010/2021)
Central Bureau of Investigation …Appellant
Versus
P.S. Jayaprakash Etc. Etc. …Respondents
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2022
(Arising from SLP(Criminal) No.4097/2022)
Central Bureau of Investigation …Appellant
Versus
Dr. Siby Mathews …Respondent
J U D G M E N T
M.R. SHAH, J.
Leave granted.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common
judgment and order dated 13.08.2021 passed by the High Court of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Neetu Sachdeva
Date: 2022.12.02
16:23:00 IST
Reason:
Kerala at Ernakulam in Bail Application Nos. 5010/2021, 5109/2021 and
5809/2021 and a separate order dated 16.11.2021 passed by the High
1
Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 4424/2021, by which the
High Court has allowed the said bail applications and has granted
anticipatory bail to the private respondents herein – original accused in
connection with Crime No. RC/050/2021/S0007 of SC-II Delhi Police
Station registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation(CBI) alleging
offences punishable under Sections 120B, 167, 218, 330, 323, 195, 348,
365, 477A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the CBI has
preferred the present appeals.
2. The allegations against the accused in the present FIR relate back
to the year 1994 in connection with Crime No. 225/1994/246/1994
registered by the Kerala Police and the Intelligence Bureau (IB) officials
which was registered against one Mariyam Rashida. One S Nambi
Narayanan was arrested along with two other persons. The
investigation was handed over to the CBI. The CBI submitted the
closure report before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam
under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. stating that the evidence collected
indicated that the allegations of espionage against the scientists of ISRO
including S Nambi Narayanan were not proved and were found to be
false. The said report came to be accepted by the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Ernakulam vide order dated 2.5.1996 and all the accused
came to be discharged. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the
2
said criminal proceedings were initially investigated by the Kerala Police
and Intelligence Bureau (IB) and all the accused in the present criminal
case were the officials at the relevant time.
2.1 That thereafter the said S. Nambi Narayanan approached the
learned Single Judge of the High Court praying for a direction to the
State Government to take appropriate action against the police officials.
The learned Single Judge allowed the said writ petition. The matter was
carried before the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala. The
Division Bench overturned the decision of the learned Single Judge
setting aside the order of the State Government declining to take
appropriate action against the police officials and remitted the matter to
the State Government. The judgment and order passed by the Division
Bench of the High Court was the subject matter before this Court by way
of Criminal Appeal Nos. 6637-6638 of 2018. By a detailed judgment
dated 14.09.2018, reported in (2018) 10 SCC 804, this Court allowed the
said appeals. This Court directed the State of Kerala to pay a sum of Rs.
50 lacs towards compensation to the appellant – S. Nambi Narayanan.
This Court also directed to constitute a Committee headed by Hon’ble
Mr. Justice D.K. Jain, a former Judge of this Court, to find out ways and
means to take appropriate steps against the erring officials.
3
2.2 That thereafter, the Committee appointed under the order of this
Court dated 14.09.2018 headed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain, a
former Judge of this Court, submitted its report dated 25.03.2021 in a
sealed cover before this Court. After perusing the report, this Court vide
order dated 16.04.2021 directed the Registry to forward one copy of the
report to the Director/Acting Director of CBI who may then proceed in the
matter in accordance with law being a Court directed enquiry. This Court
also observed and made it clear that it will be open to the CBI to treat
the report as a preliminary inquiry report and proceed in the matter
appropriately. This Court also clarified that the said report shall not be
made public and it can be used by the CBI during further
enquiry/investigation process that is required to be undertaken by the
CBI as recommended in the report.
2.3 That thereafter and taking into consideration the recommendations
made by the Committee headed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain, a
former Judge of this Court, the CBI has registered the present FIR on
1.5.2021 against 18 accused persons including the private respondents
herein, who at the relevant time were the officials of Kerala Police and
Intelligence Bureau (IB) alleging offences punishable under Sections
120B, 167, 218, 330, 323, 195, 348, 365, 477A and 506 of the IPC.
4
2.4 Apprehending their arrest in connection with the aforesaid
FIR/Crime No. RC/050/2021/S0007 of SC-II Delhi Police Station
registered by the CBI, the private respondents herein filed anticipatory
bail applications before the High Court by way of Bail Application Nos.
5010/2021, 5109/2021 and 5809/2021. By the impugned common
judgment and order, the High Court has allowed the said bail
applications and granted anticipatory bail to the private respondents
herein, who were all officials either with the Kerala Police or with the IB
at the relevant time.
2.5 One of the accused Dr. Siby Mathews applicant before the High
Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 4424/2021 (respondent
No.1 in Criminal Appeal arising from SLP(Criminal) No. 4097/2022) was
initially granted the anticipatory bail by the learned trial Court, however,
the anticipatory bail period was restricted to 60 days only and thereafter
he approached the High Court by way of the aforesaid criminal
miscellaneous application No. 4424/2021 and by the impugned
judgment and order dated 16.11.2021, the High Court has allowed the
said application and has granted the anticipatory bail to him also. The
impugned judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the High Court granting
anticipatory bail to the respective accused – private respondents herein
are the subject matter of present appeals at the behest of the CBI.
5
3. We have heard Shri S.V. Raju, learned Additional Solicitor General
of India appearing on behalf of the appellant – CBI. We have also heard
Shri Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the
respondent - original accused in Criminal Appeal arising from
SLP(Criminal) No. 8010/2021 and other learned counsel appearing for
the respondents – original accused.
4. Number of submissions have been made by Shri S.V. Raju,
learned ASG as well as learned senior counsel/counsel appearing on
behalf of the respective respondents – original accused on merits.
However, from the impugned judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the
High Court, it appears that the High Court has made some observations
without considering the individual role played by the respective accused
when they were working in the Kerala Police/IB and without considering
the nature of allegations against them, we are of the opinion that the
matters need to be remanded to the High Court to consider the
anticipatory bail applications afresh.
From the impugned judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the High
Court, it appears that what is weighed with the High Court is that FIR is
filed after a number of years. However, the High Court has not
appreciated at all that the FIR was lodged pursuant to the liberty
reserved by this Court in the judgment and order passed in the year
6
2021 and on the basis of the recommendations made by the Committee
headed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain, a former Judge of this Court.
Therefore, the High Court has failed to appreciate that the present FIR
was pursuant to the observations and the directions issued by this Court.
5. Be that as it may, as observed hereinabove, while granting
anticipatory bail to the respondents – accused, the High Court has
neither considered the allegations against the respective accused nor
the role played by them nor the position held by them at the time of
registering the FIR in the year 1994 nor the role played by them during
the investigation of Crime No. 225/1994/246/1994. The High Court has
also not taken note of the recommendations made by the Committee
headed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain, a former Judge of this Court.
6. In view of the above, the impugned judgment(s) and order(s)
passed by the High Court granting anticipatory bail to the respondents –
original accused deserve to be quashed and set aside and the matters
are to be remitted to the High Court to consider the anticipatory bail
applications afresh and thereafter to pass appropriate orders in
accordance with law and on their own merits and taking into
consideration the observations made hereinabove.
7
7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, all these
appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the
High Court dated 13.08.2021 passed in Anticipatory Bail Application Nos.
5010/2021, 5109/2021 and 5809/2021 and also the judgment and order
dated 16.11.2021 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.
4424/2021 are hereby quashed and set aside. All the Anticipatory Bail
Applications are remitted to the High Court to decide the same afresh in
accordance with law and on their own merits and in light of the
observations made hereinabove. However, it is observed that this Court
has not expressed anything on merits in favour of either of the parties
and it is ultimately for the High Court to pass appropriate order/s in
accordance with law and on their own merits and in light of the
observations made hereinabove. We request the High Court to finally
decide and disposed of the anticipatory bail applications on remand, at
the earliest but preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt of the present order.
8. The Registry of the High Court is directed to notify all these
anticipatory bail applications before the concerned Bench taking up such
matters within a period of one week from today. Till then, by way of an
interim arrangement and without prejudice to the rights and contentions
of the CBI before the High Court, it is directed that for a period of five
8
weeks from today and till the bail applications are finally decided by the
High Court on remand, the respondents herein – original accused be not
arrested, subject to their cooperation in the investigation. It is further
observed and directed that the High Court to decide and dispose of the
bail applications afresh on remand without in any way being influenced
by the present interim arrangement and the High Court shall decide and
disposed of the bail applications on remand strictly in accordance with
law and on their own merits and in light of the observations made
hereinabove.
9. All these appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent.
………………………………..J.
[M.R. SHAH]
NEW DELHI; …………………………………J.
DECEMBER 02, 2022. [C.T. RAVIKUMAR]
9