9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 1383X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt matter are not in dispute. 5. A judgment came to be delivered by this Court, on 24th June 2022, in the case of Zakia Ahsan Jafri v. State of Gujarat and Another 2022 (9) SCALE 385, wherein at paragraph 88, this Court observed thus:- "88. While parting, we express our appreciation for the indefatigable work done by the team of SIT officials in the challenging circumstances they had to face and yet, we find that they have come out with flying colours unscathed. At the end of the day, it appears to us that a coalesced effort of the disgruntled officials of the State of Gujarat along with others was to create sensation by making revelations which were false to their own knowledge. The falsity of their claims had been fully exposed by the SIT after a thorough investigation. Intriguingly, the present proceedings have been pursued for last 16 years (from submission of complaint dated 8.6.2006 running into 67 pages and then by filing protest petition dated 15.4.2013 running into 514 pages) including with the audacity to question the integrity of every functionary involved in the process of exposing the devious stratagem adopted (to borrow the submission of learned counsel for the SIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dia constituted a Bench consisting of three of us, to decide the issue. 13. Vide the order of the even date, we had stayed the impugned order passed by the High Court for a period of one week therefrom. We had also directed the Registrar (Judicial) to obtain orders from Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India and place the matter before an appropriate Bench for considering the Special Leave Petition. 14. Thereafter, the matter was listed before us on 5th July 2023. On the said date, we had issued notice, returnable today and directed the parties to complete the pleadings before that. Accordingly, the matter is listed before us today. 15. We have heard Shri Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri S.V. Raju, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, appearing for the respondent-State of Gujarat at length. 16. Shri Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel for the appellant, submits that out of the offences registered against the appellant, only Sections 194 and 468 IPC are non-bailable. Shri Sibal submits that even if the allegations made in the FIR are taken on its face value, the case under Section 194 and 468 IPC is not made out. 17. Shri Sibal subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shable with capital punishment and destabilize the democratically elected Government. 21. Shri Raju further submits that the learned Single Judge, upon appreciation of the materials placed on record, has prima facie found that the ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 194 IPC are present and a prima facie case has been made out and, therefore, the High Court has rightly rejected the bail application. 22. As held by this Court in a catena of cases right from Niranjan Singh and Another v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and Others (1980) 2 SCC 559, a detailed elaboration of evidence at the stage of bail has to be avoided. This is neither in the interest of the prosecution nor the accused. As such, we would be avoiding any detailed elaboration of evidence at this stage. 23. The order passed by the learned Judge, running into more than a hundred pages, makes for an interesting reading. On one hand, the learned Judge has spent pages after pages to observe as to how it is not necessary, rather not permissible at the stage of consideration of grant of bail to consider as to whether a prima facie case is made out or not. 24. Having made the aforesaid observation on the one hand, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties touching upon the merits of the matter. For the present purposes, in our considered view, following aspects of the matter, which emerge from the record, are of some significance. a. The appellant - a lady has been in custody since 25.06.2022. b. The offences alleged against her relate to the year 2002 and going by the assertions in the FIR pertain to documents which were sought to be presented and/or relied upon till the year 2012. c. Investigating machinery has had the advantage of custodial interrogation for a period of seven days whereafter judicial custody was ordered by the concerned Court xxx xxx xxx The essential ingredients of the investigation including the custodial interrogation having been completed, the relief of interim bail till the matter was considered by the High Court was certainly made out." 34. The consideration which weighed with the Court while passing the aforesaid order that the appellant is a lady has not changed. The fact that the offence alleged against her relates to the year 2002 and that the FIR pertains to documents which are sought to be presented or relied upon till the year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
