LexMOTAMARRI APPANNA VEERRAJU @ MAV RAJU versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 970 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 3 S.C.R. MOTAMARRI APPANNA VEERRAJU @ MAV RAJU v. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL (Criminal Appeal Nos. 328-331 of 2020) FEBRUARY 20, 2020 [A. M. KHANWILKAR AND DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.] Bail: Grant of interim relief – Interim protection granted to the appellant by the High Court during the pendency of the bail application in corruption case – Sessions Court had rejected the bail application filed by the appellant whereafter the appellant had filed regular bail application before High Court in August 2018 – Instead of finally disposing of the said bail application with promptitude, High Court granted interim relief on 1.10.2018 and continued that protection until this day – Before the High Court, appellant sought for modification of interim order passed on 1.10.2018 which was declined – Hence the instant appeal – Held: A bail application should be dealt with expeditiously and finally, one way or the other and cannot brook delay – Manner in which the bail application filed in August 2018 remained pending before High Court until this day and that 3only interim orders were passed thereon from time to time is deprecated – Rejection of bail application of co-accused would not come in the way of appellant who was granted interim protection by High Court which arrangement continued till date without any adverse report against him – To do complete justice in the matter, the main bail application pending before the High Court is disposed of with modification in the conditions predicated in the interim order – Appellant to also furnish bail bond of Rs. 25 lacs – Conditions imposed – Appeal disposed of. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal Nos. 328-331 of 2020. From the Judgment and Order dated 15.05.2019, 05.08.2019, 25.09.2019 and 27.11.2019 of the High Court at Calcutta in CRM 6471 of 2018. [2020] 3 S.C.R. 970 970 A B C D E F G H 971 Neeraj Kishal Kaul, Vinay Navare, Sr. Advs., Gaurav Bhargav, Sameer Kumar, Varun Mathur, Bhuwan Mishra, Ms. Niharika, Sharukh Ahmed, Ms. Nidhi Sahai, Advs. for the Appellant. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv., Suhaan Mukerji, Vishal Prasad, Abhishek Manchanda, Ms. Mehak Jaggi, Aryan Dev Uniyal, Ankit Dhawan, Amit Verma, Ms. Kajal Dalal, M/s. PLR Chambers and Co., Advs. for the Respondent. The following Order of the Court was passed: O R D E R 1. Delay condoned. 2. Leave granted. 3. These appeals take exception to the judgment(s) and order(s) dated 15.05.2019, 05.08.2019, 25.09.2019 and 27.11.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta in C.R.M. No.6471 of 2018 granting interim protection to the appellant during the pendency of the bail application which was filed in August, 2018 in connection with offence punishable under Sections 384/385/389/119/403/120B/411/467/468/471/ 409 IPC and 13(1)(c)/13(1)(d)/13(1)(3) r/w 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. For the nature of order that we propose to pass, it is unnecessary to dilate on the factual matrix of the case, except to observe that the investigation in connection with F.I.R. No. 27 of 2018, Daspur Police Station has already progressed and is at an advance stage of completion, as can be discerned from the chargesheet dated 28.06.2018 and supplementary chargesheet dated 24.08.2019 qua the appellant before this court. 6. The Sessions Court rejected the bail application filed by the appellant whereafter the appellant filed regular bail application before the High Court in August, 2018. Instead of finally disposing of the said bail application with promptitude, the High Court for the reasons, which are not clear to us, chose to grant interim relief to the appellant vide order dated 01.10.2018 and continued that protection until this day. The order dated 01.10.2018 reads thus: - MOTAMARRI APPANNA VEERRAJU @ MAV RAJU v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL A B C D E F G H 972 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 3 S.C.R. “...Accordingly, we direct that the petitioner shall be released on interim bail upon furnishing bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties of like amount, one of whom shall be local, to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghatal, Paschim Medinipore, on condition that the he shall not leave the jurisdiction of municipal limits of city of Kolkata until further orders except with the permission of this Court and on condition that he shall provide the address where he shall presently reside to
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.