LexRAJESH RANJAN YADAV & PAPPU YADAV versus CBI THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
RAJESHRANJANYADAV &PAPPUYADAV A v. CBI THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR NOVEMBER 30, 2007 [S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.) B Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Bail-Grant of-Held: No case for release on bail is made out- c Several bail applications filed by accused on similar grounds earlier rejected by the High Court/Supreme Court-Demise of father of accused does not ipso facto entitle him to be released on bail particularly when serious charges were leveled against him-Defence '1. evidence not completed either due to absence of defence witnesses or D ~ for seeking adjournment by them on other grounds-Release on medical ground also not justified as the medical facilities being provided to him-However, authorities concerned directed to provide him video conference facilities and also to follow the directions issued by attending doctors scrupulously-Directions issued. E Accused-appellant filed the bail application on the grounds that he has been in custody for more than seven years and that his conduct in jail has been exemplary; that on account of the death of his father, there was nobody available to him to pursue the present 1 case; that no inculpatory evidence had come on record justifying his F continued incarceration; that despite the orders of this Court from time to time, the trial was nowhere near completion; and finally that his medical condition required sophisticated life saving treatment which was only possible outside jail. Appellant contended that while dismissing one of the bail G ''-! applications filed by him the trial court was directed to ensure that the defence witnesses were examined on a day-to-day basis in accordance with a fixed time schedule so that the trial was completed 717 H 718 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 12 S.C.R. A as expeditiously as possible and the judgment delivered. However, the defence evidence had so far not been completed on account of the delaying tactics on the part of the CBI, under the circumstances, it would be appropriate to release him on bail; that video conference facilities were directed to be provided to him in order to enable him B oversee the proceedings in the trial but the said facilities were not being made available to him; and that as he was grossly overweight, he was required to undergo some invasive surgical process which required special care and nursing which could not be made available while the appellant remained in custody. c Respondent submitted that the delay, if any, in the completion of the trial was on account of number of applications filed by the appellant in the trial Court asking for one or other information or the recall of witnesses; that the CBI had completed its evidence on 7.6.2006 and that a list of 43 defence witnesses had been given by D the appellant of whom only a few had been examined and the case had been adjourned time and again at the instance of the accused or to secure the presence of the remaining defence witnesses; that in the light of Sections 273 and 317 of Cr.P.C the trial could go on even if an accused was not personally present and as such directions E should be given by this court that notwithstanding the fact that the video conference facility was out of order the court should go ahead and complete the trial; that the appellant had been referred to the best medical facility in Delhi at All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS). F Dismissing the bail application, the Court HELD:l.1. In the light of the facts that bail applications filed by the appellant raising almost similar issues have been rejected, no case for release on bail is made out; and that the demise of the G appellant's father also does not ipso facto mean that he should be released on bail more particularly on account of the serious charges .- against him. [Para 2) (720-F, G] 1.2. It is clear from the orders that have been put on record and H the additional counter affidavit on behalf of the CBI sworn by i -1 .. ·~ RAJESHRANJANYADAV &PAPPUYADAVv.CBI 719 THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR Additional Superintendent of Police CBI, that the defence evidence A had not been completed because the defence had often sought adjournments or the defence witnesses had not been present. It is found from a perusal of the orders of the trial court that the defence has been procrastinating in the matter and not permitting the defence evidence to proceed to its conclusion. [Para 5) (722-D, E, FJ B
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.