CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION versus P.S. JAYAPRAKASH ETC. ETC.

Citation: [2022] 16 S.C.R. 635 · Decided: 02-12-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
635
[2022] 16 S.C.R. 635
635
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
v.
P.S. JAYAPRAKASH ETC. ETC.
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 2147-2149 of 2022)
DECEMBER 02, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
Anticipatory bail: High Court granted anticipatory bail to
private respondents – Accusation against private respondents was
that during relevant time, they were officials either with the Kerala
Police or with the Intelligence Bureau and were involved in filing
false cases of espionage against scientists of ISRO – Writ petition
filed by one of the scientist seeking appropriate action against the
police officers – Matter travelled upto Supreme Court – The Supreme
Court constituted a committee headed by former judge of Supreme
Court to take appropriate steps against erring officials – Pursuant
to recommendations of the Committee, CBI registered present FIR
against 18 accused persons including the private respondents – By
impugned order, High Court granted anticipatory bail to the private
respondents – Instant appeal by CBI – Held: While granting
anticipatory bail to the private respondents-accused, High Court
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 – High Court also did not take
note of the recommendations made by the Committee headed by a
former Judge of Supreme Court – Impugned judgment granting
anticipatory bail to the private respondents-original accused is,
therefore, quashed and set aside – Matters remitted to High Court
to consider the anticipatory bail applications afresh and thereafter
to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
Allowing the appeals and remitting the matters to High
Court, the Court
HELD: 1. The High Court had 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, the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
636
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 16 S.C.R.
matters need to be remanded to the High Court to consider the
anticipatory bail applications afresh. It appears that what is
weighed with the High Court is that FIR is filed after a number of
years. However, the High Court did not appreciate at all that the
FIR was lodged pursuant to the liberty reserved by this Court in
the judgment and order passed in the year 2021. [Para 4][639-F-
H; 640-A]
2. While granting anticipatory bail to the respondents-
accused, the High Court did neither consider 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. The High Court also did not take note of the
recommendations made by the Committee headed by a former
Judge of this Court. 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. [Para 5-6][640-B-E]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
Nos. 2147-2149 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.08.2021 of the High Court
of Kerala at Ernakulam in Bail Application Nos. 5010, 5109 and 5809 of
2021.
With
Criminal Appeal No. 2150 of 2022.
S.V. Raju, ASG, Sairica Raju, Annam Venklatesh, Kanu Agrawal,
Pramod Kumar Guntur, Sharath Nambiar, Digvijay Dam, Ms. Swati
Ghildiyal, Rahul Mishra, M.K. Maroria, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advs.
for the Appellant.
Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv., Ms. Aparna Bhat, Ms. Karishma Maria,
Nizam Pasha, Rishabh Parikh, Ms. Aparajita Jamwal, Kaleeswaram
Raj, Mohammed Sadique T.A., Mrs. Anu K. Joy, Alim Anvar, Ms. Thulasi
K. Raj, Jose Abraham, Sebastian Joseph, M. P. Srivignesh, Lakshman
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
637
Raja. T, Mithun Kumar. N, Ms. Anju Joseph, Jogy Scaria, Ms. Beena
Victor, Keerthipriyan E., Ms. M. Pirya, Ms. Varsha Awana, Advs. for
the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
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 Kerala
at Ernakulam in Bail Application Nos. 5010/2

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.