Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2012 (1) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (1) TMI 407 - SUPREME COURTMurder - Offence punishable u/s 302 and 307 IPC - sitting Member of Parliament facing several criminal cases - habitual criminal having more than three dozen cases involving serious offences - Bail Application - Pending proceeding of the trial, the High Court, granted conditional bail to the second Respondent - whether the High Court was justified in enlarging the second Respondent on bail after imposing certain conditions - Second Respondent/accused came from behind in the convoy of cars and immediately after crossing the Appellant's car and his supporters, the convoy of cars belonging to the second Respondent/accused suddenly stopped on the road without giving any signal and the second Respondent/accused came out of his vehicle armed with a gun along with his supporters who were also carrying guns and they started giving kick blows to one of the motorcycle riders who fell down and the pillion riders of the said motorcycles were fired upon by the second Respondent and his supporters from their respective guns and thereafter, they ran away from the place. Adbul Rehman-the pillion rider sustained serious fire arm injuries. When he was taken to the hospital at Varanasi, he succumbed to his injuries. Second Respondent is a sitting Member of Parliament facing several criminal cases, that most of the cases ended in acquittal for want of proper witnesses or pending trial. HELD THAT:- As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second Respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc. Taking note of all these aspects, particularly, the fact that the second Respondent was in jail since 24.08.2009, the trial has commenced by examining the two witnesses on the side of the prosecution and the assurance by the State that trial will not be prolonged and conclude within a reasonable time and also of the fact that the High Court while granting bail has imposed several conditions for strict adherence during the period of bail, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the High Court. In fact, in the impugned order itself, the High Court has made it clear that in case of breach of any of the conditions, the trial Court will have liberty to take steps to send the applicant therein (respondent No. 2 herein) to jail again. In addition to the same, it is further made clear that if the Appellant receives any fresh threat from the second respondent or from his supporters, he is free to inform the trial Court and in such event the trial Court is free to take appropriate steps as observed by the High Court. We also direct the Trial Court to complete the trial within a period of four months from the date of the receipt of copy of this order without unnecessary adjournments. With the above observation, finding no merit for interference with the order of the High Court, the appeal is dismissed.
|