LexRAJESH RANJAN YADAV @ PAPPU YADAV versus CBI THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
' ... • A RAJESH RANJAN Y ADA V @ PAPPU Y ADA V v. CBI THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR NOVEMBER 16, 2006 B (S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] Bail-Grant of-Considerations for-Held: Mere fact that the accused has undergone long period of incarceration (six years in this case) would c not entitle him to be enlarged on bail-Court has also to consider other facts "'( and circumstances, such as interest of the society-Balance to be struck between right to individual liberty and interest of society-On facts, investigation is over; even trial is partly over and allegations against the accused are serious-Conduct of accused also not proper-In such circumstances, accused does not deserve bail-Constitution of India, 1950- D Articles 21 & 136-Penal Code, 1860-ss. 302/34/ l 20B rlw S.2 7 of the Arms Act. Appellant is an accused under Sections 302/34/120B IPC read with Section 27 of the Arms Act. His bail application had been rejected earlier on several occasions by the High Court as well as by this Court. E In the present appeal, Appellant contended that since he has been in jail for more than six years, he should be released on bail. ·He further submitted that if ultimately he is found innocent by the Trial Court, he would have undergone a long_ period of incarceration in jail which would be violative F of Article 21 of the Constitution. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. None of the decisions relied upon by the Appellant can be said to have laid down any absolute and unconditional rule about when bail G should be granted by the Court and when it should not. It all depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and it cannot be said there is any absolute rule that because a long period of imprisonment has expired bail must necessarily be granted. [45-C-D) 1.2. While it is true that Article 21 is of great importance because it H 40 } ,._ - .... RAJ ESH RANJAN YADA \"@ PAPPU Y ADA\" 1·. CBI THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR 4 J enshrines the fundamental right to individual liberty, but at the same time a A balance has to be struck between the right to individual liberty and the interest of society. No right can be absolute, and reasonable restrictions can be placed on them. While it is true that one of the considerations in deciding whether to grant bail to an accused or not is whether he has been in jail for a long time, the Court has also to take into consideration other facts and B circumstances, such as the interest of the society. [49-H; 50-A-B) 1.3. The fact that the appellant has been a Member of Parliament on four occasions, is wholly irrelevant. The law is no respecter of persons, and is the same for every one. (50-B] State of UP. v. Amarmani Tripathi, [2005) 8 SCC 21 and Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan@ Pappu Yadav & Anr., (2004) 7 SCC 528, relied on. c Babu Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR (1978) SC 527; Kashmira Singh v. State of Punjab, [1977[ 4 SCC 291; Bhagirathsinh v. State D a_( Gujarat, (1984] 1 SCC 284; Shaheen Welfare Association v. Union of India & Ors. (1996) 2 SCC 616; Joginder Kumar v. State of UP. & Ors .. [1994( 4 SCC 260 and Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., (2005) 5 SCC 294, referred to. 2.1. A perusal of the FIR itself shows that it is a triple murder case, E and the incident was !:ommitted in broad day light with sophisticated weapons. It is true that the appellant was not named in the FIR, but it has come in the statement before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of one Ranjan Tiwari that he and other assailants had been hired by the appellant to commit this ghastly crime. [50-C-D] 2.2. This Court is not inclined to comment on the veracity or otherwise of the statement of Ranjan Tiwari and other witnesses as it may influence the trial, but looking at the allegations against the appellant both in the statement F of Ranjan Tiwari and other witnesses, on the facts and circumstances of the case, this is certainly not a case for grant of bail to the appellant, particularly G since the prosecution witnesses have been examined and now the defence witnesses alone have to be examined. It would be wholly inappropriate to grant bail when not only the investigation is over but even the trial is partly over, and the allegations against the appellant are serious. (50-D-EI 3. The conduct of the appellant, as noted by this Court in another case H &, ~ 42 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006)
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.