LexSATISH JAGGI versus STATE OF CHATTISGARH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
) SA TISH JAGGI A v. STATE OF CHA TTISGARH & ORS. APRIL 30, 2007 [H.K. SEMA AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A, JJ.) B Bail: Granting of bail-Consideration for-Held, primary consideration is gravity and nature of offence-Court can only go into question of Prima C facie case established for granting bail-It cannot go into the question of credibility and reliability of witnesses put up by prosecution-In instant case, the High Court, while granting bail to the accused charged of murdering a rival political leader while campaigning in the election, in the election, did not at all consider the nature and gravity of the offence and its impact D on the democratic fabric of the society-The observations and findings recorded by High Court on credibility and evidentiary value of witnesses virtually amounts to regular trial-Such findings cannot be allowed to sustain-Order granting bail set aside. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 651 of E 2007. From the Final Judgment and Order dated 03.05.2006 of the High of Judicature ofChattisgarh at Bilaspur in Misc. Criminal Case No. 850 of2006. A.K. Ganguly, C.D. Singh, Merusagar Samantaray and Vairagya Vardhan F for the Appellant. Rajiv Dutta and Vivek Tankha, Atul Jha, Dhannendra Kumar Sinha, Rahul Shanna, Siddharth Gupta and P.N. Puri for the Respondents. Amarendra Sharan, ASG., Amit Anand Tiwari and P. Panneswaran for G the CBI. The Order of the Court was delivered by 1049 H 1050 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 5 S.C.R. A ORDER Leave granted. Respondent No.3 is an accused under Section 302/1208 !PC. His bail application was rejected by the trial Court. The same was confirmed by the B High Court. Criminal Appeal No. 1630/2005 filed by him was also rejected by this Court by an order dated 05/12/2005. It appears that his subsequent application for bail filed before the trial Court was also unsuccessful. Aggrieved thereby, he filed Misc. Criminal Case No.850/2006 before the Hon'ble S.R. Nayak, Chief Justice of Chhattisgarh C High Court at Bilaspur (as His Lordship then was). By an impugned order dated 03/05/2006, the Chief Justice of the High Court granted bail to the respondent-accused on his executing a bond in a sum of Rupees One Lakh with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. For the purpose of disposal of this case, it may not be necessary to D recite the entire facts leading to the filing of this appeal. Suffice it to say that as many as 27 material prosecution witnesses have now turned hostile. It is settled law that in granting or non-granting of bail in non-bailable offence, the primary consideration is the nature and gravity of the offence. E In the present case the respondent No.3 is accused of murdering a rival political leader while campaigning in the election. It appears that learned Chief Justice did not consider the nature and the gravity of the offence while considering the bail application of the accused. On the contrary, while considering for bail, the learned Chief Justice appears F to have decided the case pending trial on merit after scrutinising the evidence. To say the least, it is against all canons of law and judicial propriety. In paragraph 19 of its order, the learned Chief Justice recorded that among the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution to prove the charge of criminal conspiracy against the accused, PW-97 and PW-100 have G categorically denied that they were present in the meeting alleged to have held on 21/05/2003 at the Hotel Green Park. He has also observed that PW- 126 has stated that hews not at all in Raipur on 21/05/2003. He says that only isolated evidence in support of the charge is that of PW-85 but it was suggested that his testimony is unreliable not only in view of the evidence H of PW-73 but also for the reason that PW-85 has a motive to falsely involve j SATISHJAGG!v. STATEOFCHAITISGARH 1051 the accused in the commission of the offence. Learned Chief Justice has further noted in paragraph 20 that the evidence so far adduced by the prosecution does not appear to prove the case of the prosecution that Ram Avtar Jaggi was murdered by Chiman Singh in pursuance A of a conspiracy hatched in the meeting held on 21/05/2003 at the Hotel Green Park, Raipur. He further goes on to state that the two eye-witnesses, namely, B Abdul Jameel Khan and Banke Bihari, who were examined to prove the above charge have turned hostile in
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.