The Court rejected a successive bail petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. holding that no fresh ground was established. Finding prima facie evidence of conspiracy, the Court dismissed the application but directed the trial court to conclude the trial within six months.
Bail prayer refused; order dated 16.07.2020.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
BLAPL No.1288 of 2019
1
Learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Acharya relies upon a decision reported in ( 2005) 2 SCC 13, Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal Vrs. State of Tamil Nadu in support of his contention that there is no material with regards to conspiracy, inasmuch as the co-accused statement is not a substantive piece of evidence and for that he vehemently urged that since the petitioner is a member of political party, he has been harassed and falsely implicated in this case by the ruling party.
2
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioner on being granted interim bail has not abused the same, for which there is no chance of absconding.
3.A. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the bail stating that the petitioner is a potentiary to influence the witnesses of the trial.
3.B. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel opposed the bail referring some statements of the witnesses and contended that charge is yet to be framed.
As the contention revolves around the prima facie case for offence U/s.302 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, it is found that the factum of material available from the statements of informant and other witnesses U/s.161 Cr.P.c. prima facie establishes the criminal conspiracy. Further, there is no dispute that there was severe political animosity between two groups. In the decision reported in (2019) I SCC (Crl.) 325 the case of State of Orissa vs. Mahimananda Mishra 18.09.2018, while cancelling bail Hon’ble Apex Court observed that:-
3
“11. It is common knowledge that generally direct evidence may not be available to prove conspiracy, inasmuch as the act of conspiracy takes place secretly. Only the conspirators would be knowing about the conspiracy. However, the Court, while evaluating the material, may rely upon other material which suggests conspiracy. Such material will be on record during the course of trial. However, at this stage, prima facie, the Court needs to take into consideration the overall material while considering the prayer for bail.
12. xxxxxxx It is by now well settled that at the time of considering an application for bail, the Court must take into account certain factors such as the existence of a prima facie case against the accused, the gravity of the allegations, position and status of the accused, the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and repeating the offence, the possibility of tampering with the witnesses and obstructing the Courts as well as the criminal antecedents of the accused. It is also well settled that the Court must not go into deep into merits of the matter while considering an application for bail. All that needs to be established from the record is the existence of a prima facie case against the accused. (See the judgment of this Court in the case of Anil Kumar Yadav Vrs. State (NCT) of Delhi, (2018) 12 SCC 129.) ”
Long custody period, in this nature of case, alone cannot be a potential ground to maintain successive bail petition.
In the wake of above analysis, I am not inclined to grant bail to petitioner in this successive bail petition.
Keeping in view the observation of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hussain & Anr. Vrs. Union of India , reported in 2017 (5) SCC 702 , the lower court is directed to speed up the trial to ensure its completion within six months from the date of filing of certified copy of this order. The petitioner shall be at liberty to renew the bail prayer in the trial court if the trial is
4
not completed within the aforesaid period which shall be considered on its own merit, without being influenced by the observation in this order.
The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of.
………………………... Dr. A. K. Mishra, J.
mkp
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a successive bail petition is maintainable on the ground of long custody without fresh grounds.
Whether the available material establishes a prima facie case of criminal conspiracy under sections 120-B, 147, and 302 IPC.
Whether the petitioner is liable to be granted bail given the gravity of the charges and potential to tamper with witnesses.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal Vrs. State of Tamil NaduReferred¶6
(2005) 2 SCC 13, Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal Vrs. State of Tamil Nadu · Who else cites this
State of Orissa vs. Mahimananda MishraExplained¶12
(2019) I SCC (Crl.) 325, State of Orissa vs. Mahimananda Mishra · Who else cites this
Anil Kumar Yadav Vrs. State (NCT) of DelhiReferred¶12
Anil Kumar Yadav Vrs. State (NCT) of Delhi, (2018) 12 SCC 129 · Who else cites this
Hussain & Anr. Vrs. Union of IndiaRelied on¶18
Hussain & Anr. Vrs. Union of India, 2017 (5) SCC 702 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Krushna Chandra Nayak
The State
Dr. A. K. Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
