SANGHIAN PANDIAN RAJKUMAR versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ANR.

Citation: [2014] 4 S.C.R. 234 · Decided: 28-03-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2014) 4 S.C.R. 234 
SANGHIAN PANDIAN RAJKUMAR 
v. 
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 698 of 2014} 
MARCH 28, 2014 
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI, RANJAN GOGOi AND 
N.V. RAMANA, JJ.] 
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973: 
s. 439 - Bail - Factors to be considered before granting 
bail - Culled out - Appellants an JPS and an S.J. of Police in 
Anti Terrorist Squad stated to have been involved in killing 
of three persons - Held: In the light of the details, allegations 
0 in charge-sheet filed before court, the facts that many of the 
co-accused have been granted bail by trial court/High Court 
and Supreme Court, that both appellants are in custody for 
nearly 7 years pending trial, that it would not be possible for 
Special Court to conclude the trial within a reasonable period 
E and that the case has been transferred out of the State, the 
Court is satisfied that both the appellants have made out a 
case for bail - They shall be released on bail on the conditions 
mentioned in the judgment. 
The appellants, A-2 an IPS and A-6, a Sub Inspector 
F of Police in Anti Terrorist Squad, along with others were 
stated to have been involved in murders of three persons. 
The appellants were arrested on 24.4.2007 and 1. 7 .2007 
and since then they were in custody. Their bail 
G 
H 
applications were dismissed by the High Court. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 At the foremost, the court granting bail 
should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and 
234 
SANGHIAN PANDIAN RAJKUMAR v. CENTRAL 
235 
BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 
not as a matter of course. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. 
A 
Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav* this Court has held 
that amongst other circumstances of the case, the 
following factors are required to be considered by the 
court before granting bail: 
B 
(a) The nature of accusation and the severity of 
punishment in case of conviction and the nature of 
supporting evidence. 
(b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the 
witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant. 
C 
(c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of 
the charge. 
In the instant case, this Court has perused the role 
attributed to the appellants in the charge-sheet filed in 
D 
court as well as other materials and also taken note of 
judicial custody for nearly seven years pending trial. [para 
11-12] [240-B-C; D-F; 241-A] 
*Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu 
E 
Yadav and Another (2004) 7 sec 528 - relied on. 
1.2 As regards the delay, it is not in dispute that in 
respect of abduction and killing of two persons, after 
prolonged hearings, the trial was transferred to Mumbai, 
that is, out of Gujarat on the orders of this Court. 
Thereafter, in respect of killing of the third person, again, 
on the orders of this Court, the case was transferred to 
Mumbai to be heard along with the trial relating to killing 
F 
of earlier two persons. Taking note of these aspects 
including various orders of this Court, it cannot be 
G 
claimed that the investigating agency was responsible 
for the delay. [para 13] [241-B-D] 
1.3 The appellants are in custody nearly for a period 
of seven years pending trial. So far, the charges have not 
H 
236 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 4 S.C.R. 
A been framed. It has been pointed out that there is no 
chance of completion of trial in the near future due to 
voluminous documents and more than 600 witnesses. 
Further, the relevant records/documents are still pending 
in the original court at Gujarat as well as in the custody 
B of Registrar General of the High Court. They are yet to be 
transferred to the transferee court. It is also evident that 
voluminous documents are to be translated from Gujarati 
to Marathi. There is no concrete information about the 
probable duration for completion of the said work. In 
c such circumstances, the completion of trial cannot even 
be presumed in a reasonable period; [para 14] [241-F-G; 
242-B-C] 
1.4 It has been pointed out that some persons 
arrayed as accused have been granted either regular bail 
D or anticipatory bail. Some of the accused were granted 
bail by the trial court while others by the High Court and 
by this Court. It has also been brought to the notice of 
this Court that the appellant (A-6), was released on bail 
by this Court on three occasions for short periods and 
E he never misused the privilege granted to him by the 
Court. [para15,16 and 20] [242-D; 243-G-H; 244-G-H] 
1.5 In 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.