9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Preventive Detention and Arrest 2. Bail and Surety Conditions 3. Jurisdiction of Special Judge 4. Right to Speedy Trial 5. Cancellation of Bail Summary: Preventive Detention and Arrest: On the night of November 29/30, 1984, a jeep with five occupants, including Simranjit Singh Mann, was stopped near the Indo-Nepal border. Mann, a dismissed Indian Police Service officer, was under an order of preventive detention u/s National Security Act. The police found Rs. 62,722 with one occupant who allegedly offered a bribe. Various documents, including letters from Mann and photographs of Jarnail Singh Bhindrawala, were seized. An FIR was registered for offences u/s 121-A, 124-A, 123, 153-A, 505, and 120-B of IPC and s. 5(iii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Bail and Surety Conditions: The four accused, other than Mann, moved for bail u/s 167(2) CrPC, which was granted with the condition that sureties should be residents of Araria town. Despite furnishing sureties, they could not be released due to detention under the National Security Act. Mann was also granted bail under similar conditions but remained detained. The surety later withdrew, leading to arrest warrants u/s 444(2) CrPC. The High Court quashed Mann's detention order, but the charge-sheet was filed, and the accused were remanded to custody. Jurisdiction of Special Judge: The Special Judge held that the offences were not committed in the same transaction and separated the trial for offences u/s 165A and 165A read with s. 34 from other offences. The State of Bihar filed a writ petition challenging the separation and jurisdiction of the Special Judge, which is pending before the High Court. Right to Speedy Trial: The accused argued that their right to a speedy trial u/s 21 of the Constitution was violated due to deliberate delays by the State. The Court acknowledged the right to a speedy trial as fundamental but found no unreasonable delay in the investigation, attributing it to the nature and complexity of the case. The Court directed an expeditious trial. Cancellation of Bail: The Court clarified that an order for release on bail u/s 167(2) CrPC is not defeated by the filing of a charge-sheet or remand to custody u/s 309(2). The order can only be canceled u/s 437(5) or 439(2). The High Court and Special Judge erred in holding that the bail order lapsed with the charge-sheet filing. Given the long lapse of time and subsequent directions for an expeditious trial, the Court dismissed the special leave petitions, refraining from interfering under Art. 136 of the Constitution.
|
