LexBARUN CHANDRA THAKUR versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F [2017] 12 S.C.R. 142 BARUN CHANDRA THAKUR v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND OTHERS (Criminal Appeal Nos. 2152-2153 of2017) DECEMBER 11,2017 [R.K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.438 - Bail - Anticipatory bail - Grant of - Murder of 7 year old school boy in school - Application for anticipatory bail/transit bail filed before Bombay High Court by the top Management Executives of the school (private respondents) - Interim stay from arrest granted to private respondents by single judge of High Court - Appellant-father filed intervention application opposing same - Single judge of High Court dismissed anticipatory bail applications - However, granted interim relief for one day subject to certain conditions - Meanwhile after the day of incident, a resolution was passed by District Bar Associdtion Gurugram condemning the brutal act of accused unanimously resolving that no member of Bar would appear/ represent the accused before court or any other forum - Private respondents then approached P&H High Court for grant of interim bail which stayed the arrest till 7.10.2017 - Single judge of High Court granted interim bail with certain directions - Appellant-father challenged this order before Supreme Court - Supreme Court disposed of the appeal, directing High Court to dispose of the bail applications within JO days - High Court considered the matter afresh and made absolute the interim bail granted on 7.10.2017 to the private respondents till the presentation of challan subject to certain conditions - Challenged on the ground that private respondent committed fraud and suppression of material facts and they ought to have approached Sessions Court, Gurugram instead G of directly approaching High Court when on 15.9.2017, the Resolution passed by Bar Association to the effect that no lawyer will represent the accused in the instant matter stood withdrawn - Held: The private respondents cannot be held guilty of any suppression, concealment or fraud in this matter for the simple reason that the petitions were prepared on 15.09.2017 and accepted H 142 BARUN CHANDRA THAKUR v. C.B.l. AND OTHERS 143 by the Registry of the P&H High Court on 17.09.2017 - The fact A relating to the withdrawal of the Resolution passed by the District Bar Associations, Gurugram and Sohna cannot be said to be in the knowledge. of the private respondents - Moreover, this plea had been dealt with by single Judge in the order dated 07.10.2017 and had been negated - This incident had received wide coverage in B the media, both electronic and print - In fact, it can be said that there was a trial by media, therefore, there was no fault on part of private respondents in directly approaching the High Court for grant of anticipatory/interim bail under s.438 of the Code, that too when the High Court has concurrent jurisdiction - On merits of the case, in the FIR, no allegation was made against the private respondents C - The CBI was yet to examine and analyse the role of the private respondents in this case and there was no evidence of their complicity in the crime and there was not even a pointer of involvement of respondents in the alleged crime - Their involvement cannot be established until and unless, there was some substantial evidence D against them - Single Judge, while granting interim bail to the private respondents till the presentation of Challa11 had laid down certain conditions - The investigation 1.1 still under progress and the CBI is yet to come to a conclusion regarding the involvement of the private respondents in the crime - The private respondents made out a case for grant of protection by way of interim bail till the presentation of E Challan by the CBI - Therefore, the order passed by single Judge granting interim bail to the answering respondents till the presentation of Challan cannot be faulted with. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal Nos.2152-2153of2017. F From the Judgment and Order dated 21.11.2017 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CRMM Nos. 35003 and 35002 of2017. Sushi\ K. Tekriwal, Dr. Mamta Tekriwal, Venkateswara Rao Anumolu, Advs for the Appellant. Mukul Rohtagi, R. S. Cheema, Sr. Ad vs, Sandeep Kapur, Maheen Pradhan, Rajat Soni, Ms. Apoorva Pandey, Gudipati G. Kashyap, Veer Sandhu, Ashneet Singh (for Mis. Karanjawala & Co.), Advs for the Respondents. G H
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.