http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  1172 of 2006

PETITIONER: Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav

RESPONDENT: CBI through its Director

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 30/11/2007

BENCH: S.B.SINHA & HARJIT SINGH BEDI

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT

O R D E R  

CRL.M.P. NO. 9066 and 11845 OF 2007             IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1172 OF 2006

HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J.  

1.      This application for bail has been filed directly in  this court on the following grounds: 1)      that the appellant has been in custody for more  than seven years and that his conduct in jail has  been exemplary;

2)      that on account of the death of his father, there  is nobody available to him to pursue the present  case,

3)      that no inculpatory evidence has come on                                                                     record justifying his continued incarceration,

4)      despite the orders of this Court from time to  time, the trial was no where near completion and,  finally,

5)      that his medical condition required sophisticated                                                 life saving treatment which was only possible  outside jail.  

2.    We are of the opinion that in the light of the facts  that several bail applications filed by the appellant  raising almost similar issues have been rejected no case  for release on bail is made out.  We are also of the  opinion that the demise of the appellant’s father also does  not ipso facto mean that he should be released on bail more  particularly on account of the serious charges against him.   We are therefore left with the last two points for  consideration. 3.   Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

appellant has very strenuously urged that despite the  directions of this Court in Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu  Yadav  vs. CBI through its Director (2007) 1 SCC 70 while  dismissing one of the bail applications filed by the  appellant that the trial court was to ensure that the  defence witnesses were examined on a day-to-day basis in  accordance with a fixed time schedule so that the trial was  completed as expeditiously as possible and the judgment  delivered, the defence evidence had so far not been  completed on account of the delaying tactics on the part of  the CBI and it was therefore appropriate that the appellant  be released on bail.  It has also been pointed out that a  direction had also been issued that as the appellant was  lodged in Tihar Jail in Delhi and the trial was being  conducted in Patna, video conference facilities be provided  to the appellant in order to enable him oversee the  proceedings in the trial but the said facilities were not  being made available to him as the equipment had been  damaged. It has also been argued that as the appellant was  grossly overweight, he was required to undergo some  invasive surgical process which required special care and  nursing which could not be made available while the  appellant remained in custody.  Several documents in  support of the appellant’s medical condition have been  handed over to us in Court. 4.   In reply a counter affidavit on behalf of the CBI has  been filed and Mr. A. Sharan, learned ASG has drawn our  attention to the enclosures appended therewith to submit  that the delay, if any, in the completion of the trial was  on account of repeated applications filed by the appellant  in the trial court asking for one or other information or  the recall of witnesses and as such it did not lie in him  to state that the trial was being inordinately delayed.  He  has also pointed out that the CBI had completed its  evidence on 7.6.2006 and that a list of 43 defence  witnesses had been given by the appellant of whom only a  few had been examined and the case had been adjourned time  and again at the instance of the accused or to secure the  presence of the remaining defence witnesses.  He has also  submitted that in the light of Sections 273 and 317 of  Cr.P.C the trial could go on even if an accused was not  personally present and as such directions should be given  by this court that notwithstanding the fact that the video  conference facility was out of order the court should go  ahead and complete the trial.   He has also pleaded that  the appellant had been referred to arguably the best  medical facility in Delhi i.e. All India Institute of  Medical Sciences (AIIMS) and that all medical aid would be  provided to him as per his needs.  5.    We have heard learned counsel for the parties and  gone through the record very carefully.  In the cited case  it has been observed that the appellant had filed bail  applications ad nauseam in the High Court and in this Court  and this amounted to a misuse of the legal process and it  had accordingly been ordered that no further bail  application on his behalf be entertained by any Court.  An  application for review was thereafter filed in the  aforesaid matter and was allowed on 27.4.2007 only to the  extent that "in the event any occasion arises, the  petitioner may move this Court for grant of bail".  The  present application filed within a month of that date, is  yet another in continuation of the series of applications  raising almost identical issues which have already been  rejected by this Court.  However, as some additional points  have been raised, we must deal with them as well.  It is

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

clear from the orders that have been put on record and the  additional counter affidavit on behalf of the CBI sworn by  Sh. Pyare Lal Meena, Additional Superintendent of Police  CBI, that the defence evidence  had not been completed  because the defence had often sought adjournments or the  defence witnesses had not been present.  We find from a  perusal of the Zimni orders of the trial court from  2.5.2007 to 20.9.2007 that the defence has been  procrastinating in the matter and not permitting the  defence evidence to proceed to its conclusion.  It is true  that on a few occasions the trial had been adjourned on  account of the non-availability of the video conference  facility whereas the record reveals that the adjournments  had largely been sought either by the co-accused Anil Kumar  Yadav or the appellant, on one pretext or the other.  It is  also clear that several miscellaneous applications have  been filed by the appellant praying for a recall of  witnesses and as they have been rejected the matters are in  the High Court by way of appeal/revision.  6.    Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the  appellant has however submitted that the appellant was only  exercising his legal rights in accordance with law and  could therefore not be faulted on that account.  We agree  with the learned counsel to the extent that the appellant  was fully justified in exercising his legal rights but it  does not then behove him to say that the trial was being  unduly delayed.  On the other hand, as has already been  noted above, adjournments have been taken time and again  for the completion of the defence evidence whereas Mr.  Sharan has, on the contrary, made a statement that the CBI  would complete its arguments within a week of the  commencement thereof.  7.   We have also carefully gone through the appellant’s  medical papers that have been produced before us in court.   We are of the opinion that they do not as of now justify  his release on bail even on medical grounds the more so as  all facilities are being made available to him by the jail  authorities.  We accordingly dismiss the application but  while doing so issue the following directions: 1)      Every effort will be made to provide  Video Conference Facilities to the  appellant but in the light of Sections  273 and 317 of the Cr.P.C , the trial  will go on to its conclusion even if  they are not available;

2)      that in the event that the video  conference facilities are available, the  appellant would be allowed access to his  lawyers through the aforesaid facility  in addition for one hour on each day  that the final arguments in the trial  proceed.

3)      that the Tihar jail authorities will  ensure that all the directions issued by  the attending doctors with respect to  the appellant will be observed  scrupulously ; and

(4)             should the appellant’s medical  condition require further orders from  the Courts at a later stage, he would be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

at liberty to approach this Court yet  again.