CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION versus V. VIJAY SAI REDDY

Citation: [2013] 8 S.C.R. 830 · Decided: 09-05-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM, M.Y. EQBAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2013] 8 S.C.R. 830 
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 
v. 
V. VIJAY SAi REDDY 
(Criminal Appeal No. 729 of 2013) 
MAY 9, 2013 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND M.Y. EQBAL, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 437 - Bail -
Charge-sheets against the accused - Bail application -
C Granted by courts below - Held: Bail was granted, taking into 
account irrelevant materials and keeping out relevant 
materials - In the facts of the case, bail liable to be cancelled 
- Accused free to renew his prayer for bail after investigation 
relating to remaining charge-sheets are complete and 
D appropriate report is filed before the Court. 
E 
Bail - Grant of - Considerations - Discussed. 
Bail - Cancellation of - Held: Power to cancel bail should 
always be exercised very sparingly by the court of law. 
CBI, pursuant to the order of the High Court, 
registered case against 7 4 persons including respondent-
accused uls. 120-B rlw. ss. 409, 420 and 477-A IPC and 
s. 13(2) r/w. s. 13(1)(c) and (d) of Prevention of Corruption 
F Act, 1988. After the investigation, few charge-sheets were 
filed by CBI against the accused persons including the 
respondent-accused. In the meantime Special Court 
granted bail to respondent-accused and the same was 
confirmed by High Court. Hence the present appeal by 
G CBI, seeking cancellation of bail granted to the 
respondent-accused. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. While granting bail, the court has to keep 
H 
830 
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION v. V. VIJAY 831 
SAi REDDY 
in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence 
in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which 
conviction will entail, the character of the accused, 
circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, 
reasonable posslblllty of securing the presence of the 
accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the 
witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the 
public/State and other similar considerations. It has also 
to be kept in mind that for the purpose of granting bail, 
the Legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds 
for believing" instead of "the evidence" which means the 
Court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it as 
to whether there is a genuine case against the accused 
and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima 
facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected, 
A 
B 
c 
at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt 
of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. [Para 28] [847-
D 
A-DJ 
2. The Special Court took irrelevant materials for 
consideration for grant of bail and the High Court having 
arrived at definite conclusion that several findings of 
E 
Special court are unacceptable or irrelevant but ultimately 
affirmed the very same order of the special Judge 
granting bail, taking into account the irrelevant materials 
and keeping out the relevant materials, which had to be 
considered for the grant of bail. [Para 27 and 29] [846-G-
F 
H; 847-D-E] 
3. If irrelevant materials have been taken into account 
or relevant materials have been kept out of consideration, 
the order granting bail to the accused cannot be 
sustained. In the same way, if there is specific allegation 
G 
by the prosecution that the accused in question was a 
party to the criminal conspiracy, neither the Special Court 
nor the High Court is justified in granting bail to the said 
person. [Para 9] [838-C-D] 
H 
832 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013) 8 S.C.R 
A 
State of U.P. through CBI vs. Amarmani Tripathi (2005) 
8 SCC 21: 2005 (3) Suppl. SCR 454; Dinesh MN. (S.P.) vs. 
State of Gujarat (2008) 5 SCC 66: 2008 (6) SCR 1134; 
Narendra K. Amin (Dr) vs. State of Gujarat and Anr. (2008) 
13 SCC 584: 2008 (6) SCR 1149; State of Maharashtra and 
B Ors. vs. Dhanendra Shriram Bhurle and Ors. (2009) 11 SCC 
541: 2009 (3) SCR 143; Central Bureau of Investigation, 
Hyderabad vs. Subramani Gopalakrishnan and Anr. (2011) 
5 sec 296: 2011 (5) SCR 824 - relied on. 
4. Cancellation of bail necessarily involves the review 
C of a decision already made, it should always be exercised 
very sparingly by the court of law. In the light of the facts 
of the case, the special Judge committed an error in 
granting bail and the same was erroneously affirmed by 
the High Court. Five charge sheets have been filed so far 
D and three more charge sheets are in the final stages and 
are yet to be filed. In order to complete the investigation 
in respect of three more charge sheets, the prese

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