LexLT. COL. PRASAD SHRIKANT PUROHIT versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2017] 8 S.C.R. 253 LT. COL. PRASAD SHRIKANT PUROHIT v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (Criminal Appeal No.1448 of2017) A AUGUST21,2017 B [R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.[ Bail - Grant of - Case of Anti-Terrorist Squad (ATS) that appellant-Serving Army Officer associated with Military Intelligence and Interior Terrorism (Insurgency Activities), along with other co- C accused entered into a criminal conspiracy and caused bomb blast at Malegaon by using explosive substances, to create communal rift - Charge sheet filed under the provisions of Penal Code, Army Act, 1967 and 1999 Act, by ATS - Thereafter, investigation taken over by National Investigation Agency (NIA) - Arrest of appellant - Bail application -Appellant and others discharged from D the offences under MCOC Act and direction to transfer the case to the regular court - Bail application later restored and thereafter, rejected by the Special Judge - Appeal before the High Court - During pendency thereof, NIA submitted supplementary charge sheet dropping charges under MCOCA against all accused - In view thereof. High Court permitted appellant to file fresh bail .E application - Rejection of bail application by the courts below - On appeal, held: Balance is to be maintained between the personal liberty of the accused and the investigational rights of the agency - It must result in minimum interference with the personal liberty of the accused and the right of the agency to investigate the case - F Keeping in view of the fact that supplementary charge-sheet submitted by NIA was at variance with the charge-sheet filed by the ATS, that the trial is likely to take a long time; and that the appellant has been in prisqn for about 8 years and 8 months, a prima facie case made out by the appellant - Thus, the appellant enlarged on G bail on the conditions stated - Order of the High Court set aside - · Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302, 307, 326, 324, 427, 153A read with Section 120B - Arms Act - ss. 3, 5 and 25 - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (Amended) 2004 - ss. 15, 16, 17, 18, 20 and 23 - Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 - ss. 3(/)(i), 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(3), 3(5) - Explosive Substances Act - ss.3, 4, 5 & 6. H 253 254 A B c SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 8 S.C.R. Bail - Grant or refusal of bail - Factors to be considered by the court - Held: Court mo exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course - Though at the stage of granting bail, detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit 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 charged of having committed a serious offence - Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind - Among other circumstances, court to consider, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction and nature of supporting evidence; reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to complainant: and prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 There are material contradictions in the charge D sheets filed by the ATS and the NIA which are required to be tested at the time of trial and this Court cannot pick or choose one version over the other. Liberty of a citizen is undoubtedly important but this is to balance with the security of the community. A balance is required to be maintained between the personal E liberty of the accused and the investigational rights of the agency. F It must result in minimum interference with the personal liberty of the accused and the right of the agency to investigate the case. [Para 201 [265-E-Fl 1.2 The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for primafacie concluding why bail was being granted particularly G where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non- application of mind. It is also necessary for
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.