http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 1031 2000

PETITIONER: STATE, C.B.I./S.P.E., NEW DELHI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: PAL SINGH & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       28/11/2000

BENCH: R.P.Sethi, K.T.Thomas

JUDGMENT:

L.....I.........T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J

     THOMAS, J.

     Leave  granted.  The order of the High Court now under challenge  is  one of granting bail to some of  the  accused persons.   On  a  perusal of the facts alleged  against  the accused  we thought, at the time of admission of the special leave,  that  impugned  order  was  susceptible  to  certain consequences  and  hence we suspended the operation  of  the said order on 23.7.1999 and directed the respondents accused to  be put back in jail.  But despite the efforts adopted by us  to  have the trial of the case progressing and  reaching its  logical  conclusion it is a stark irony that the  trial has  not  even begun yet.  Neither the prosecution  nor  the defence  could make even a guess as to when the trial  could possibly  commence,  much less end.  In such a situation  of compounded  uncertainty the respondents who were arrested in connection  with  this case way back in August 1996,  cannot justifiably  be  detained in jail as under-trial  prisoners, despite  all  the ostensible serious features of  the  crime delineated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

     The  incidents  which  gave rise to this  bail  matter happened on 13.9.1992 when a sitting MLA of the U.P.  Vidhan Sabha  (Mahendra  Singh  Bhatti) and  another  person  (Uday Prakash  Arya)  were gunned down by armed assailants in  the sight  of  the  onlookers at a busy locality.  In  the  same shoot-out certain other persons were also injured, some very badly.   But the local police could not achieve any tangible progress  in  investigation and hence the CBI was  entrusted with the task.

     The  CBI arrested the two respondents on 18.6.1996 (as per  their version, but respondents put a different date  as for  their  arrest).   One  AK-47 rifle  and  one  SLR  were recovered from the respondents.  The ballistic expert, after testing  the rifles and the bullets recovered from the  dead body,  sent up a report that the bullets were fired from the same  rifles.  The CBI completed the investigation and  laid the  charge-sheet  on  7.10.1996 alleging that  seven  named persons  (including  the  two respondents) and  some  others (whose  identity  is not known yet) hatched a conspiracy  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

murder Mahendra Singh Bhatti on account of political rivalry with one D.P.  Yadav (another MLA of U.P.).  Pursuant to the said   conspiracy   the  murders   were  committed  by   the respondents.

     On 1.2.1999 a Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court granted  bail  to the respondents solely on the ground  that recovery  of  the fire arms was made only 4 years after  the murders.   We  suspended  the operation of  the  said  order mainly  on account of our thinking that bail in murder cases should  not  be  granted merely on the ground  of  delay  in recovery  of  the weapons.  However, when we were told  that the  case  could not be proceeded with even now,  we  cannot permit  such  a hibernating uncertainty to be  a  sufficient ground  for  detaining a person as an  under-trial  prisoner endlessly.   The case remains where it reached 4 years  ago, but  respondents  are not in any manner responsible for  the aforesaid  torpid  situation.  Among the  remaining  accused D.P.  Yadav and Karan Yadav have not been arrested even till the  date  of the impugned order, nor could the trial  court proceed with the trial as the case was not even committed to the sessions court.

     The  Superintendent of CBI informed this Court through an  affidavit  that  the said two accused (D.P.   Yadav  and Karan  Yadav)  could not be arrested because  the  Allahabad High  Court  ordered stay of all further proceedings in  the case  when  two writ petitions were filed before  that  High Court in 1996.  To ascertain the truth of the situation this Court  directed the Registrar of the High Court to report to us  regarding  the  stage of the said  writ  petitions.   On 13.3.2000 the Registrar of the Allahabad High Court reported to  this  Court that learned single judge of the High  Court heard  arguments  in  the writ petitions  on  5.2.1998,  but judgment was not yet pronounced.

     On  31.3.2000 we gave expression to our distress  that on  account of the delay in pronouncing judgment in the writ petitions  after  granting stay of further proceedings,  the accused  who were in jail had to continue to languish during pre-conviction  period.  However, the Registrar of the  High Court  later reported to this Court that the single judge of the   High  Court  had  disposed   of  the  writ   petitions subsequently.   We then thought that the dusk was clear  for the  trial  to  proceed.  But then it was submitted  by  the learned  senior  counsel for CBI himself that even  now  the case  could not progress due to certain other odds.  He also admitted  that the present respondents are not in any manner responsible for such odds.

     In  the light of the aforementioned circumstances  any further   detention  of  the   respondents  as   under-trial prisoners would be a travesty of justice to the respondents. We,  therefore, dismiss this appeal by not interfering  with that  part of the impugned order allowing the respondents to be  released  on bail.  However, we deem it  necessary  that Sessions  Judge should impose conditions on the respondents, before  they  are  released, for ensuring  that  respondents would  not  tamper  with  the   evidence  or  intimidate  or influence  any of the witnesses for prosecution and that the respondents  would  unfailingly  attend  the  court  on  the posting  dates.  We leave it to the Sessions Judge to impose such conditions as he deems fit for the above purpose.

     With these observations we dispose of this appeal.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3