Supreme Court: In a batch of petitions challenging order passed by Calcutta High Court on 20-02-2023 granting bail to Jitendra Narain, Ex-Chief Secretary of Andaman and Nicobar Islands for offences under Sections 376D, 228A, 506 and 120 of Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC') and bail granted to two co-accused from the same First Information Report (‘FIR'), the Division Bench of Vikram Nath* and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ refused to interfere with the impugned order and modified the conditions for grant of bail.
Impugned Order of High Court
The Court referred to the impugned order dated 20-02-2023 wherein, the Division Bench of High Court refused to deal with the matter and expressed that any reference on the submissions related to evidence collected during investigation, stating that various pleas raised by accused could materially affect the trial. The Court had noted that the first accused was an IAS officer already transferred to Delhi, and that some stringent conditions may restrict him from influencing any witness in the Islands. The second accused being in service, there would be no chance of him absconding. It was further noted that there was no material that his release may result in him influencing the witnesses or endanger justice being thwarted. With such a base, the Court granted bail to the three accused with certain conditions restricting visits to the Andaman & Nicobar Islands, no contact with Island officials, no threats, etc.
The Court perused the Police Report under Section 173(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and the specific incriminating materials against the accused. The Court in the instant matter also refrained from commenting upon the contentions of the parties on the alleged inconsistencies, contradictions or deficiencies in each other's case.
Considerations for Granting Bail
The Court pointed towards the parameters/circumstances to be considered while granting or refusing bail as laid in a series of judgments. The Court referred to Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra, (2022) 9 SCC 321 which reiterated and approved the factors to be considered for grant of bail as laid in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496, as listed below:
-
whether there is any prima face or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence;
-
nature and gravity of the accusation;
-
severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;
-
danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;
-
character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;
-
likelihood of the offence being repeated;
-
reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and
-
danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.
The Court was of the view that the High Court's decision in the impugned order “neither dealt with the real issue, nor indicated reasons” which were germane and called for consideration regarding grant or rejection of bail. The High Court examined issues which ought not have been primary factors while considering prayer for bail, for which, as expressed by the Court in the instant matter, “This could have entailed remand to the High Court for a discussion, even if short, on the merits of granting bail in the present facts and circumstances.”
Modification of Bail Conditions
However, the Court decided to independently consider the matter on merits and did not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgments. However, to preserve the ‘interest of justice', the Court imposed additional conditions for bail granted to the accused persons:
-
Trial to proceed expeditiously without any undue adjournment;
-
Accused to render full cooperation in the trial;
-
Accused not to leave the territory of India;
-
Petitioner to submit his passport to the Trial Court and in case of more than one passport, the other passport also be deposited with the trial court;
For petitioner fearing for her and her family's safety, the Court put the onus of ensuring their safety on the Union Territory Administration. The Court further directed the Director General of Police to examine the petitioner's claims of not acting on her subsequent complaints seeking registration of FIR and taking an independent decision on the action called for as per law within 10 days.
[XXX v. State (UT of Andaman & Nicobar Islands), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1062, decided on 24-08-2023]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Vikram Nath
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioners: Advocate on Record R.C. Kaushik
For Respondents: Advocate on Record Rauf Rahim, Advocate Mohammed Tabraiz, Advocate Rakesh Pal Gobind, Advocate Ali Asghar Rahim, Advocate Rajat Nair, Advocate on Record Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, Advocate Deep Kabir, Advocate on Record Kunal Chatterji, Advocate Ajit Prasad, Advocate Maitrayee Banerjee, Advocate Rohit Bansal, Advocate Kshitij Singh
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
