LawforAll

advocatemmmohan

My photo
since 1985 practicing as advocate in both civil & criminal laws

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE

Monday, October 15, 2012

Grieved by the order of rejection of prayer for bail for offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the IPC’) and under Sections 25(1)(b) and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 9576 of 2011 dated 26.7.2011 by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, the appellant, accused No. 4, has preferred the present appeal by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution.= with regard to the investigation conducted by the investigating agency. It has called it perfunctory. After ascribing reasons, it has directed the C.B.I. to expeditiously undertake further investigation. We may hasten to add that the legal propriety of the said order is not the subject matter of challenge in the present appeal. It has only been brought to our notice that C.B.I. has been directed to conduct a comprehensive investigation. Needless to state, it is open to the appellant to challenge the legal substantiality of the said order. But for the present, suffice it to say, as there is a direction for fresh investigation, it should be inapposite to enlarge the appellant on bail. We may add that in case the order for reinvestigation is annulled by this Court, it would be open for the appellant to file a fresh application for bail before the competent Court. If the order of the High Court withstands scrutiny, after the C.B.I. submits its report, liberty is granted to the appellant to move the appropriate court for grant of bail. We may clarify that though we have narrated the facts, adverted to parameters for grant of bail under Section 439 of the Code, dwelled upon the view of this Court relating to criminal conspiracy and noted the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, we have not expressed our final opinion on entitlement of the appellant to be released on bail or not because of the subsequent development i.e. direction by the High Court for comprehensive investigation by the C.B.I. 27. The appeal, is accordingly, disposed of.


                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                      CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1649  OF 2012
             (Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 2450 of 2012


Pratapbhai Hamirbhai Solanki                    ... Appellant
                                   Versus
State of Gujarat and another                     ...Respondents



                               J U D G M E N T

Dipak Misra, J.


      Leave granted.

2.    Grieved by the order of rejection of  prayer  for  bail  for  offences
punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code,  1860
(for short ‘the IPC’) and under Sections 25(1)(b) and 27 of  the  Arms  Act,
1959 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 9576 of 2011 dated 26.7.2011  by  the
High Court of Gujarat at  Ahmedabad,  the  appellant,  accused  No.  4,  has
preferred the present appeal by special  leave  under  Article  136  of  the
Constitution.

3.    The  appellant  was  arraigned  as  an  accused  in  crime/F.I.R.  No.
163/2010 for the aforesaid offences and the investigation was  conducted  by
the CID (Crime), Ahmedabad.  The prosecution case, in brief, is that an  FIR
was registered against two persons on 20th of  July,  2010  about  8.40  pm.
They came on a Bajaj motorcycle having registration  No.  GJ-1-DQ-2482.   At
the corner of “Satyamev Complex-I”, Opposite  Gujarat  High  Court  at  S.G.
Highway, they fired at one Amitbhai Bhikhabhai  Jethwa  from  their  country
made revolver on the left part of his back and caused injuries to  which  he
succumbed and they immediately disappeared from  the  scene  of  occurrence.
After  the  criminal  law  was  set  in  motion,  the  investigating  agency
commenced  investigation  and  after  completion,  placed  the  charge-sheet
before the competent court.

4.    During pendency of investigation, an application was filed before  the
learned Session Judge for grant of bail contending,  inter  alia,  that  the
name of the appellant was not found in the FIR; that he had  no  nexus  with
the commission of crime; that the  case  of  the  prosecution  that  he  had
conspired for murder of the deceased who was an RTI activist was  absolutely
incredulous inasmuch as the allegations against the appellant  were  totally
vague and, in fact, had been deliberately made to  destroy  his  unblemished
public image, for he had been in public life for so  many  years;  that  the
material brought on record in no way implicated the appellant in  the  crime
in question and, therefore, he was entitled  to  bail.   The  learned  trial
Judge, analysing the material on record, declined to enlarge  the  appellant
on bail.  Be it noted, after the charge-sheet was filed  the  doors  of  the
learned trial Judge were again knocked at but the same  did  not  meet  with
success.

5.    As the factual narration would exposit,  the  accused-appellant  filed
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 2847 on 30th March, 2011  before  the
High Court for grant of bail, but the same was withdrawn.   Thereafter,  the
appellant  filed  Criminal  Misc.  Application  No.  7505  of  2011  seeking
temporary bail on the ground that his wife had suffered  from  acute  gynaec
problem and she needed to undergo surgery for  Fibroid  in  the  Uterus  and
regard being had to the said assertion  the  High  Court  granted  temporary
bail for a period of 21 days.

6.    As is manifest from the material brought  on  record,  the  informant,
after completing his duty about 8.00 p.m., was returning to his house  on  a
motorcycle.  He went to “Satyamev Complex”  with  his  friend,  Bhupatisinh,
for the purpose of having tea and then they heard a gun shot sound and  they
rushed to the place where the firing took place.  They found that one  Bajaj
motorcycle No. GJ-1-DQ-2482, one country made pistol and a plastic bag  were
lying on the road.   They  also  saw  a  white  colour  Maruti  Gypsy.   The
informant, who was a constable,  informed  his  superior  inspector  on  his
mobile phone and gathered information from the  public  around.   They  were
informed that two persons after firing drove towards Viswas City Road.   The
emergency ambulance was  called  for  and  the  staff  after  examining  the
injured person declared him dead.  The  advocate  present  there  identified
the deceased to  be  Amitkumar  Jethwa,  an  RTI  activist.   In  course  of
investigation, the appellant was arrested on 7.9.2010.

7.    Thereafter, as  the  factual  matrix  is  uncurtained,  the  appellant
preferred bail application  under  Section  439  of  the  Code  of  Criminal
Procedure, 1973 forming the subject-matter of Crl. Application No.  9576  of
2011.  It was urged before  the  High  Court  that  the  appellant,  for  no
justifiable reasons, had remained in custody since 7.9.2010 and the  charge-
sheet had been filed under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B of the IPC solely  on
the basis of the statement of Abhesinh Kesarsinh Zala,  a  Peon  serving  in
the office of the appellant.  It was also canvassed that there was  no  iota
of material to rope him in the crime and a maladroit effort  had  been  made
to demolish his political career and demolish his social image.

8.    It was further urged that the first application for bail  having  been
withdrawn, there was  no  bar  to  entertain  and  dispose  of  second  bail
application  on  merits  in  favour  of  the  accused-appellant;  that   the
appellant is a childhood friend of accused,  Bahadursinh  Vadher,  a  police
constable, having business of mines and he is engaged  in  the  business  of
mobile towers and had held the post of the  ex-President  of  Kodinar  Nagar
Palika and Vice-President at the time of incident  and  had  been  roped  in
such a crime solely on the base that the accused-Bahadursinh had met him  at
his office in Kodinar where allegedly a conspiracy was hatched to  eliminate
the deceased, which was sans substance; that as far as theory of  conspiracy
is concerned, nothing had been remotely brought on  record  to  justify  the
allegations; and that the charge-sheet had been filed;  and,  therefore,  he
was entitled to be enlarged on bail.  It  was  propounded  that  a  singular
telephonic call from the mobile the voice of which was not  recorded,  could
not form the fulcrum of the prosecution to book the appellant in  the  crime
and further the  case  has  been  fabricated  with  the  sole  intention  to
systematically smother the liberty of a law abiding individual.

9.    The application for bail was resisted by the learned counsel  for  the
prosecution on the ground that the deceased was the President of Gir  Nature
Youth Club, an NGO and also Editor of a magazine “Around the Nature” and  an
active RTI activist.  He had found the appellant to be  involved  in  number
of  illegal  activities  and  had  exposed  him  in  number  of  ways  as  a
consequence of which he had hatched the conspiracy with the  accused  No.  1
which ultimately resulted in hiring of accused No. 2 as  a  contract  killer
on payment of Rs.11 lakhs  to  eliminate  him.   The  learned  counsel  also
contended that there were various call details  and  contacts  made  by  the
accused, particularly, with accused No. 2 who had absconded; that  fake  SIM
cards were provided by the  appellant  to  hide  their  identity;  that  the
appellant had  criminal  antecedents;  that  no  leniency  should  be  shown
despite the plea advanced as regards the social reputation; that the  factum
of conspiracy is quite complex and the prosecution had been able  to  gather
the connecting materials which would go a long way to  show  involvement  of
the appellant and hence, it was not a fit case where  discretion  for  grant
of bail should be exercised.

10.   The learned single Judge, considering the rival  submissions  advanced
at the Bar came to hold that the conspiracy between the accused  No.  4  and
the accused No. 1 was obvious from the number of visits of accused No. 1  to
the office of accused  No.  4;  that  there  was  conversation  between  the
accused No. 4, the appellant herein, and the  sharp-shooter,  a  person  who
had absconded and that itself prima facie  showed  the  involvement  of  the
accused-appellant.  The High Court taking note of all the aspects  including
the gravity of the offence declined to admit the appellant to bail.

11.   We have heard Mr.  Mukul  Rohatgi,  learned  senior  counsel  for  the
appellant, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, learned counsel for the State of Gujarat  and
Ms. Kamini Jaiswal and Mr. Mohit D. Ram, learned counsel for respondent  No.
2.

12.   Mr. Rohatgi, learned senior counsel for the appellant, accused No.  4,
has submitted that the reliance on the statement of the peon  who  had  only
mentioned that accused No. 1 Bahadursinh, was  a  frequent  visitor  to  the
office of the appellant, but he had not been able to hear  any  conversation
because of glass doors, makes the impugned orders sensitively  unsustainable
as such kind of statement does not render any assistance to the  prosecution
case.  He would further  submit  that  the  allegation  that  the  appellant
provided the finance in hiring the  contract  killer  has  no  semblance  of
truth inasmuch as it  is  manifest  from  the  statement  of  Amarsinh,  the
brother of Bahadursinh, that he had given rupees nine lakhs in cash  to  his
brother for purchase of land in Kodinar area and thus, the appellant had  no
involvement with the alleged financing.   It  is  his  submission  that  the
voice in the mobile phone was not recorded and  only  a  singular  call  was
made by the accused No. 2 and such a stray incident cannot even  suggest  in
the remotest manner any kind of conspiracy and, therefore, regard being  had
to the period of incarceration, he should be enlarged on bail.

13.   Ms.  Hemantika  Wahi,  learned  counsel  for  the  State  of  Gujarat,
resisting the application for grant of bail, submitted that  the  conspiracy
is always hatched in secrecy and there  are  series  of  circumstances  from
which the involvement  of  the  accused-appellant  is  evincible  and,  that
apart, the material on  record  would  reveal  that  the  appellant  was  in
constant connection with the  accused  No.  1,  who  was  facing  a  lot  of
disadvantage because  of  the  pro-active  crusade  undertaken  against  his
illegal activities by the deceased, an RTI activist, by filing PILs.  It  is
also urged by her that the deceased had been able to expose the  involvement
of the appellant in many an illegal  operations  and,  therefore,  the  High
Court has correctly declined to entertain the prayer for bail.

14.    Ms. Kamini Jaiswal and Mr. Mohit D.  Ram,  learned  counsel  for  the
respondent No. 2, the father of the deceased, have supported  the  stand  of
the State.

15.   At this juncture, we may refer  with  profit  to  certain  authorities
which lay down the considerations  that  should  weigh  with  the  Court  in
granting bail in non-bailable  offences.   This  Court  in  State  v.  Capt.
Jagjit Singh[1] and Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.)[2] has held  that
the nature and seriousness of the offence; the character  of  the  evidence;
circumstances which are peculiar to the accused;  a  reasonable  possibility
of the presence of the accused not being secured at  the  trial;  reasonable
apprehension of witnesses being tampered with; the larger  interest  of  the
public or the State and other similar factors which may be relevant  in  the
facts and circumstances  of  the  case  are  to  be  considered.   The  said
principles have been reiterated in Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal v. State  of
T.N.[3]

16.   In Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi and Another[4],  this  Court  has
culled out the principles to be kept in  mind  while  granting  or  refusing
bail.  In that context, the two-Judge Bench has stated that  while  granting
the bail, the court has to keep in  mind  the  nature  of  accusations,  the
nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment  which
conviction will entail, the character, behaviour, means and standing of  the
accused,  circumstances  which  are  peculiar  to  the  accused,  reasonable
possibility  of  securing  the  presence  of  the  accused  at  the   trial,
reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being  tampered  with,  the  larger
interests of the public or State and similar other  considerations.  It  has
also to be kept in mind that for the  purposes  of  granting  the  bail  the
legislature has used the words “reasonable grounds  for  believing”  instead
of “the evidence” which means the court dealing with the grant of  bail  can
only satisfy it as to whether there is a genuine case  against  the  accused
and that the prosecution will be able to produce  prima  facie  evidence  in
support of the charge. It is not  expected,  at  this  stage,  to  have  the
evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

17.   In State  of  U.P.  through  C.B.I.  v.  Amarmani  Tripathi[5],  while
emphasizing  on  the  relevant  factors  which  are   to   be   taken   into
consideration, this Court has expressed thus: -

        “While a vague allegation that  the  accused  may  tamper  with  the
        evidence or witnesses may not be a ground to  refuse  bail,  if  the
        accused is of such character that his mere presence at  large  would
        intimidate the witnesses or if there is material  to  show  that  he
        will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence,
        then bail will be refused.”

In the said case, the Bench has also observed as follows: -

        “Therefore, the general rule that this Court  will  not  ordinarily
        interfere in matters relating to bail,  is  subject  to  exceptions
        where  there  are  special  circumstances  and   when   the   basic
        requirements for grant of bail are completely ignored by  the  High
        Court.”


18.   Recently, in Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh @ Lalla  Babu  &  Anr.[6],
this Court while dealing with individual liberty and cry of the society  for
justice has opined as under: -
         “It is also to be kept in mind that individual liberty  cannot  be
         accentuated to such an extent or elevated to such a high  pedestal
         which would bring in anarchy or  disorder  in  the  society.   The
         prospect of greater justice requires that  law  and  order  should
         prevail in a civilized milieu.   True  it  is,  there  can  be  no
         arithmetical  formula  for  fixing  the  parameters   in   precise
         exactitude  but  the  adjudication   should   express   not   only
         application of mind but also exercise of jurisdiction on  accepted
         and established norms.  Law and order in  a  society  protect  the
         established precepts and see to it that contagious crimes  do  not
         become epidemic.  In an organized society the concept  of  liberty
         basically requires citizens to be responsible and not  to  disturb
         the  tranquility  and  safety  which  every  well-meaning   person
         desires.”


19.   We are absolutely conscious that liberty is a greatly cherished  value
in the life of an individual, and no one would like to  barter  it  for  all
the tea in China, but it is obligatory on the part  of  court  to  scan  and
scrutinize,  though  briefly,  as  regards  the  prima   facie   case,   the
seriousness and gravity of the crime and the potentiality of the accused  to
tamper with the evidence apart from other aspects before the restriction  on
liberty is lifted on imposition of certain conditions.

20.   The submission of Mr. Rohtagi  is  that  there  is  total  absence  of
material to connect the appellant with the crime  in  question  but  due  to
maladroit endeavour of the prosecution he has been falsely implicated.   The
learned senior counsel would emphatically urge  that  certain  visits  by  a
friend of accused No. 1, a singular telephone call and filing  of  a  public
interest litigation where the appellant is  not  involved  cannot  form  the
foundation of a prima facie case relating to conspiracy.

21.   At this stage, it is useful to recapitulate the view  this  Court  has
expressed  pertaining  to  criminal  conspiracy.  In  Damodar  v.  State  of
Rajasthan[7], a two-Judge Bench after referring to  the  decision  in  Kehar
Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.)[8], State of Maharashtra v.  Somnath  Thapa[9],
has stated thus: -

        “The most important ingredient of the offence being  the  agreement
        between two or more persons to do an illegal act. In a  case  where
        criminal conspiracy is alleged, the court must inquire whether  the
        two persons are independently pursuing the same end  or  they  have
        come together to pursue the unlawful object. The  former  does  not
        render them conspirators but the latter does. For  the  offence  of
        conspiracy some kind of  physical  manifestation  of  agreement  is
        required to be established.  The  express  agreement  need  not  be
        proved. The evidence as to the transmission of thoughts sharing the
        unlawful act is  not  sufficient.  A  conspiracy  is  a  continuing
        offence which continues to subsist till it is executed or rescinded
        or frustrated  by  choice  of  necessity.  During  its  subsistence
        whenever any one of the conspirators does an act or series of acts,
        he would be held guilty under Section 120-B  of  the  Indian  Penal
        Code.”

22.   In Ram Narayan Popli v. Central  Bureau  of  Investigation[10],  while
dealing with  the  conspiracy  the  majority  opinion  laid  down  that  the
elements of a criminal conspiracy have been stated to be: (a) an  object  to
be accomplished, (b) a plan or scheme embodying  means  to  accomplish  that
object, (c) an agreement  or  understanding  between  two  or  more  of  the
accused persons whereby, they become definitely committed to  cooperate  for
the accomplishment of the object by the means embodied in the agreement,  or
by any effectual means, and  (d)  in  the  jurisdiction  where  the  statute
required an overt act. It has been further opined  that  the  essence  of  a
criminal conspiracy is the unlawful combination and ordinarily  the  offence
is complete when the combination is framed. No overt act  need  be  done  in
furtherance of the conspiracy, and that the object of the  combination  need
not be accomplished, in order  to  constitute  an  indictable  offence.  Law
making conspiracy a crime  is  designed  to  curb  immoderate  power  to  do
mischief which is gained by a combination of the means.   The  encouragement
and support which co-conspirators give to one another rendering  enterprises
possible which, if left to individual effort, would  have  been  impossible,
furnish the ground for  visiting  conspirators  and  abettors  with  condign
punishment. The conspiracy is held to be continued and  renewed  as  to  all
its members wherever and whenever any  member  of  the  conspiracy  acts  in
furtherance of the common design. The two-Judge  Bench  proceeded  to  state
that for an offence punishable under Section  120-B,  the  prosecution  need
not necessarily prove that the perpetrators expressly agree to do  or  cause
to  be  done  illegal  act;  the  agreement  may  be  proved  by   necessary
implication. Offence  of  criminal  conspiracy  has  its  foundation  in  an
agreement to commit an offence. A conspiracy  consists  not  merely  in  the
intention of two or more, but in the agreement of  two  or  more  to  do  an
unlawful act by unlawful means.

23.   In the said  case  it  has  been  highlighted  that  in  the  case  of
conspiracy there cannot be any direct evidence. The ingredients  of  offence
are that there should be an agreement between persons  who  are  alleged  to
conspire and the said agreement should be for doing an illegal  act  or  for
doing by illegal means an act which itself may not  be  illegal.  Therefore,
the essence of criminal conspiracy is an agreement to do an illegal act  and
such  an  agreement  can  be  proved  either  by  direct  evidence   or   by
circumstantial evidence or by both, and it is a matter of common  experience
that direct evidence to prove conspiracy  is  rarely  available.  Therefore,
the circumstances proved before, during and after the occurrence have to  be
considered to decide about the complicity of the accused.

24.   The present factual matrix is required to be tested on  the  aforesaid
touchstone of law.  There is no denial of the fact that the deceased was  an
RTI activist and extremely keen in exposing certain  matters  which  pertain
to illegal mining and many other such arenas.  It is  not  in  dispute  that
the deceased was murdered about 8.30 p.m. on the Public Road  just  opposite
the High Court and near the corner of “Satyamev  Complex-I”  where  situates
the office of Bar Council of Gujarat.  The appellant is a dealer  in  mobile
phones and there is some material on record that he had handed  over  mobile
phones to his friend who is a police constable and owns mines;  and  that  a
call has been  traced  from  the  mobile  of  the  contract  killer  to  the
appellant.  Mr. Rohtagi  would  argue  with  vehemence  that  the  aforesaid
circumstances are  sketchy  and  the  prosecution  has  tried  to  rope  the
appellant in conspiracy basically on the ground that  he  had  provided  the
finance but the said story does collapse like a pack of  cards  inasmuch  as
the accused No. 1 had taken a substantial sum from his brother  towards  his
share in the profit from the family property.   It  is  also  borne  out  on
record that the appellant is an  influential  man  in  the  society  and  he
claims to be a friend of a constable and has urged that as a friend  he  was
visiting his office and nothing has been stated to have been  heard  by  the
office  peon.   It  is  argued  with  immense  emphasis  that  the   sketchy
connection does not make out a prima facie case against  the  appellant  and
further there is no material to infer that he would tamper with evidence  or
would not make himself available for trial.

25.   Ordinarily, we would have proceeded to  express  our  opinion  on  the
basis of analysis of the material available on record but, a  pregnant  one,
after  order  was  reserved,  Ms.  Arora,  learned  counsel  appearing   for
respondent No. 2 filed an order  dated  25.9.2002  passed  by  the  Division
Bench of the High Court of Gujarat in Special Criminal Application No.  1925
of 2010.  On a perusal of the said order,  it  is  luculent  that  the  High
Court after referring to its number of  earlier  orders  and  surveying  the
scenario in entirety has passed the following order:-

           “13.  As discussed in detail in paragraphs 6, 7  and  9  herein,
           investigation into the murder of the petitioner’s son  does  not
           appear to have been carried out in  conformity  with  the  legal
           provisions discussed in paragraph 11 and the  control  exercised
           by one police officer of a very high rank,  all  throughout  and
           even after the orders for further investigation by  this  Court,
           provides sufficient ground to conclude  that  the  investigation
           was controlled and the line of investigation was determined  and
           supervised so as to put to naught the allegations made  and  the
           suspicion raised by the acquaintances and family members of  the
           deceased.  As discussed in detail earlier in  paragraph  9,  the
           investigation would hardly inspire confidence not  only  in  the
           minds of the bereaved and aggrieved  family  members,  but  even
           general public on taking an objective view of  the  matter.   On
           the other hand, the deceased having been an active RTI activist,
           so-many people whose vested interests may have been affected  by
           his applications under the RTI  Act,  could  have  a  motive  to
           contribute  into  his   killing.    Therefore,   a   perfunctory
           investigation on the basis of statements of the accused  persons
           themselves may not unearth the whole truth and meet the ends  of
           justice.   Therefore,  it  is   imperative   that   proper   and
           comprehensive investigation is undertaken by an agency which  is
           not under the control of the State Government.

           14. The Right to Information Act, 2005 declared in its  Preamble
           that,  whereas  the  Constitution  of  India   has   established
           democratic Republic and democracy requires an informed citizenry
           and  transparency  of  information  which  are  vital   to   its
           functioning  and  also  to  contain  corruption  and   to   hold
           Governments  and  their  instrumentalities  accountable  to  the
           governed; and to preserve  the  paramountcy  of  the  democratic
           ideal, that it was enacted.  The Constitutional powers conferred
           upon the highest judicial institution in the State to  entertain
           public interest litigation and  issue  necessary  direction  was
           also a step forward in enforcing the fundamental rights  of  the
           citizens and ensuring the rule of law.  These progressive  steps
           cannot be allowed to be nullified  and  no  one  should  face  a
           threat to his life when he approaches a court of law to exercise
           his right of access to justice.  In such  milieu,  murder  of  a
           petitioner in a PIL and an RTI activist, in front  of  the  High
           Court, could be  read  as  a  clear  message  to  the  concerned
           citizens that they may have to  pay  by  their  lives,  if  they
           insist upon using the tools placed in their  hands  by  law  and
           approach the Court for redressal  of  public  grievance  against
           some individuals.  The commission of murder, in the facts of the
           present case, amounted to an affront to the judicial system  and
           a challenge to implementation of  an  Act  of  Parliament,  with
           national  repercussions  and  has  to   be   viewed   seriously.
           Therefore, it is of utmost importance that the case on  hand  is
           thoroughly investigated and properly prosecuted  by  independent
           and competent officers, so as to inspire confidence and reaffirm
           faith of the people in rule of law.

           15.   In the facts and for the  reasons  discussed  hereinabove,
           while concluding that the investigation into murder of  the  son
           of the petitioner was far from fair, independent, bona  fide  or
           prompt, this Court refrain from even  remotely  suggesting  that
           the investigating agency should  or  should  not  have  taken  a
           particular line of  investigation  or  apprehended  any  person,
           except in  accordance  with  law.   It  is  clarified  that  the
           observations made herein are only for  the  limited  purpose  of
           deciding whether further investigation was required to be handed
           over to CBI, and they shall not be construed as expression of an
           opinion on any particular aspect of  the  investigation  carried
           out so  far.   However,  in  view  of  the  peculiar  facts  and
           circumstances, following the ratio of several judgments  of  the
           Apex Court discussed hereinabove and in the interest of  justice
           and to instill confidence in the investigation  into  a  serious
           case having far reaching implications that we order that further
           investigation into I-C.R.No. 163 of 2010 shall be transferred to
           the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI),  with  the  direction
           that the CBI shall immediately undertake an independent  further
           investigation, and all the officers and  authorities  under  the
           State Government shall co-operate in such investigation so as to
           facilitate submission of report of investigation by the  CBI  as
           early as practicable and  preferably  within  a  period  of  six
           months.  The police authorities of the  State  are  directed  to
           hand over the records of the present case to the CBI authorities
           within  ten  days  and  thereafter  the  CBI   shall   take   up
           comprehensive  investigation  in  all  matters  related  to  the
           offence and report thereof shall be submitted to  the  Court  of
           competent jurisdiction and, in the meantime, further  proceeding
           pursuant to the charge-sheets  submitted  by  respondent  No.  5
           shall remain stayed.”

26.   On a perusal of the aforesaid order, it is demonstrable that the  High
Court has expressed its dissatisfaction with  regard  to  the  investigation
conducted by the  investigating  agency.   It  has  called  it  perfunctory.
After ascribing  reasons,  it  has  directed  the  C.B.I.  to  expeditiously
undertake further investigation.  We  may  hasten  to  add  that  the  legal
propriety of the said order is not the subject matter of  challenge  in  the
present appeal.  It has only been brought to  our  notice  that  C.B.I.  has
been directed to conduct a comprehensive investigation.  Needless to  state,
it is open to the appellant to challenge the  legal  substantiality  of  the
said order.  But for  the  present,  suffice  it  to  say,  as  there  is  a
direction for fresh investigation, it should be inapposite  to  enlarge  the
appellant on bail.  We may add that in case the  order  for  reinvestigation
is annulled by this Court, it would be open for  the  appellant  to  file  a
fresh application for bail before the competent Court.  If the order of  the
High Court  withstands  scrutiny,  after  the  C.B.I.  submits  its  report,
liberty is granted to the appellant to move the appropriate court for  grant
of bail.  We may clarify that though we have narrated  the  facts,  adverted
to parameters for grant of bail under Section 439 of the Code, dwelled  upon
the view of this  Court  relating  to  criminal  conspiracy  and  noted  the
submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, we  have  not  expressed
our final opinion on entitlement of the appellant to be released on bail  or
not because of the subsequent development i.e. direction by the  High  Court
for comprehensive investigation by the C.B.I.

27.   The appeal, is accordingly, disposed of.




                                                             ……………………………….J.
                                      [K. S. Radhakrishnan]



                                                             ……………………………….J.
                                                               [Dipak Misra]

New Delhi;
October 12, 2012.


-----------------------
[1]    (1962) 3 SCR 622
[2]    (1978) 1 SCC 118
[3]    (2005) 2 SCC 13
[4]    (2001) 4 SCC 280
[5]    (2005) 8 SCC 21
[6]    JT 2012 (9) SC 155
[7]    (2004) 12 SCC 336
[8]    (1988) 3 SCC 609
[9]    (1996) 4 SCC 659
[10]   (2003) 3 SCC 641


-----------------------
21