LexDIPAK SHUBHASHCHANDRA MEHTA versus C.B.I. AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A 8 [2012] 3 S.C.R. 278 DIPAK SHUBHASHCHANDRA MEHTA v. C.8.1. AND ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 348 of 2012) FEBRUARY 10, 2012 [P. SATHASIVAM AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.] Bail - Grant of - Detention in jail custody for long period - Delay in trial - Effect of - Held: When there is delay in trial, C bail should be granted to the accused, though the same should not be applied to all cases mechanically - In the instant case, it is clear that due to various factors the trial may take a longer time - Considering the non-possibility of chommencement of trial in near future and also of the fact that D the accused-appellant is in custody from 31.03.2010, except the period of interim bail, i.e. from 15.09.2011 to 30.11.2011, it is not a fit case to fix any outer limit taking note of the materials collected by the prosecution - When undertrial prisoners are detained in jail custody to an indefinite period, E Article 21 of the Constitution is violated - Appellant was charged with economic offences of huge magnitude - At the same time, though the Investigating Agency had completed the investigation and submitted charge sheet including additional charge sheet, the necessary charges were not F framed, therefore, presence of appellant in custody may not be necessary for further investigation - In view of the same, considering the precarious health condition of the appellant, as supported by the documents including the certificate of the Medical Officer, Central Jail Dispensary, the appellant is G entitled to an order of bail pending trial on stringent conditions in order to safeguard the interest of the CBI - Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 21. Bail - Grant of - Exercise of discretion by Court - Manner of - Held: The Court granting bail should exercise H 278 DIPAK SHUBHASHCHANDRA MEHTA v. C.B.I. AND 279 ANR. its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of A course - Though at the stage of granting bail, a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted, particularly, where the accused is B charged of having committed a serious offence - Factors to be considered by the Court granting bail, stated. Appellant alongwith other persons was charged with economic offences of huge magnitude and detained in jail C custody. His application for regular bail was rejected by the High Court. The appellant filed SLP, whereupon this Court taking into account the assurance of the Additional Solicitor General (ASG) that the trial will be completed within a period of three months did not grant bail to the appellant, but permitted him to move bail application D before the Special CBI Court in case of continuation of trial beyond period of three months. However, the trial could not be concluded and though the prosecution submitted charge sheet the charges were not framed. The appellant filed another application for regular bail which E also was rejected by the High Court. The appellant is suffering from various medical ailments and is in custody from 31-03-2010, except a short period of interim bail from 15-9-2011 to 30-11-2011 and F his application under S. 239 CrPC for discharge is pending. Two other accused had been granted bail by the High Court on medical grounds. The question for consideration in the instant appeal G was whether the appellant had made out a case for regular bail. Disposing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The assurance of the ASG for com~!etion H 280 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 3 S.C.R. A of the case within three months ·was not fulfilled due to vari.ous reasons. Also, though the charge sheet and additional charge sheet were submitted to the Court, the same have not been approved and framed. In the meanwhile, apart from absence of some of the accused B on various dates, due to some reasons or other including medical grounds, the appellant has also filed a petition for 'discharge'. Further, even in the counter affidavit filed by the CBI, it is stated that the accused persons moved app~ications under Section 239 CrPC for discharge and c the same are pending for hearing and disposal and further the Madhao Merchantile Bank case is going on day-to-day basis before the Special CBI Court and in addition to the same, Sohrabuddin Fake Encounter case is also pending for trial
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.