Adverse remarks against the Accused in his absence by High court and Bail Application - to M.P. in Murder case - Apex court not set aside the Adverse remarks as the high court gave clarification and also made only to come to a conclusion for transferring a case to CBI but observed that the trail court should not give an weight to the remarks of High court and allowed bail on conditions = Dinubhai Boghabhai Solanki …Appellant VERSUS State of Gujarat & Ors. ...Respondents = 2014(Feb.Part) judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41248

 Adverse remarks against the Accused in his absence by High court and Bail Application - to M.P. in Murder case - Apex court  not set aside the Adverse remarks  as the high court gave clarification and also made only to come to a conclusion for transferring a case to CBI but observed that the trail court should not give an weight to the remarks of High court and allowed bail on conditions =

Mr. Rohatgi emphasized that  the  judgment  is  replete  with
           prejudicial remarks. He has been described as a  person  with
           criminal antecedents. He is stated to have been involved  and
           named in several  police  complaints  and  FIRs  for  serious
           offences, including attempt to murder and  murder.  The  High
           Court  has  also  observed  that  many  offences  have   been
           committed at the behest of the appellant. But almost all such
           complaints and FIRs have terminated  in  summary  reports.  A
           long list of the cases in which the appellant has been  found
           to be not involved was placed before the High Court. The High
           Court has further observed that the crusade of  the  deceased
           Jethwa against the illegal empire of the appellant herein was
           the cause for the murder  of  Jethwa.  The  High  Court  also
           observed  that  the  appellant  herein   was   managing   the
                              entire investigation.  The police did  not
           even  record  the  statements  of  numerous  persons  as  the
           statements would have  pointed  an  accusing  finger  at  the
           appellant for being responsible  for  the  death  of  Jethwa.
           Relying on the observations recorded  in  the  judgment,  Mr.
           Rohatgi  submits  that  unless  the  same  are  expunged  the
           appellant cannot possibly expect a fair trial.
 Ultimately, the High Court records the following conclusion:
              “All the above circumstances put together indicated that  the
              investigation was controlled from the  stage  of  registering
              the FIR and only the clues provided by  the  accused  persons
              themselves were investigated to close  the  investigation  by
              filing charge-sheet  No.158  of  2010  dated  10.11.2010  and
              further investigation had not served any purpose.  Therefore,
              the investigation with the lapses and  lacunae  as  also  the
              unusual acts of omission and commission did not and could not
              inspire confidence. It may not be  proper  and  advisable  to
              further critically examine the charge sheet already submitted
              by the police, as some of the  accused  persons  are  already
              arrested and shown as accused persons and even chare  is  yet
              to be framed against them. The facts and averments  discussed
              in paragraph 6 and  7  hereinabove  also  amply  support  the
              conclusion that the investigation all throughout was far from
              fair, impartial independent or prompt.”

      56.   This conclusion also only records the reasons which  persuaded
      the High Court to transfer the investigation to CBI. No  categorical
      findings are recorded about the involvement of the appellant in  the
      crime of conspiracy. In fact, the High Court is well aware that  the
      observations have been made only for the limited purpose of reaching
      an appropriate conclusion as to whether the investigation  had  been
      conducted impartially.  The  High  Court  has  itself  clarified  as
      follows :
           “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 refrains  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.”


      57.   After recording the aforesaid clarification,  it  was  noticed
      that the investigation  is  being  transferred  to  CBI  to  instill
      confidence of the general public in the  investigation,  keeping  in
      mind the seriousness of the case having far reaching implications.
      58.   Although we have not  expunged  any  of  the  adverse  remarks
      recorded by the High Court, we emphasize that the trial court should
      keep in mind that any observations made by the High Court, which may
      appear to be adverse to the Appellant, were  confined  only  to  the
      determination of the issue as to whether the investigation is to  be
      transferred to CBI. Undoubtedly, the trial of the  accused  will  be
      conducted unaffected and  uninfluenced  by  any  of  the  so  called
      adverse remarks of the High Court.
      59.   For the reasons stated above, we see  no  merit  in  both  the
      appeals and the same are hereby dismissed.

keeping in view  the  fact  that  the  CBI  has
      submitted the supplementary  charge-sheet  and  that  the  trial  is
      likely to take a long time, we deem it appropriate  to  enlarge  the
      petitioner-appellant on bail, subject to the following conditions:
      (i) On his furnishing personal security in the sum of      Rs.5 lacs
      with  two  solvent  sureties,  each  of  the  like  amount,  to  the
      satisfaction of the trial court.
      (ii) The petitioner-appellant shall appear  in  Court  as  and  when
      directed by the court.
      (iii) The petitioner-appellant shall make himself available for  any
      further investigation/interrogation by the CBI as and when required.


      (iv) The petitioner-appellant shall not directly or indirectly  make
      any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with  the
      facts of the case so as to dissuade that person from disclosing such
      facts to the court or to the investigating agency or to  any  police
      officer.
      (v) The petitioner-appellant  shall  not  leave  India  without  the
      previous permission of the trial court.
      (vi)  In  case  the  petitioner-appellant  is  in  possession  of  a
      passport, the same shall be deposited with the  trial  court  before
      being released on bail.


      62.   The trial court shall be at liberty to add/impose any  further
      condition(s) as it deems necessary, in addition to the aforesaid.


      63. The Criminal Misc. Petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.


      2014(Feb.Part) judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41248
SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, A.K. SIKRI

                                 REPORTABLE


                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                       CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.492 OF 2014
                (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 8406 of 2012)


      Dinubhai Boghabhai Solanki                      …Appellant
      VERSUS
      State of Gujarat & Ors.                            ...Respondents
                                    WITH
                       CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 493 OF 2014
                (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 8292 of 2012)




                               J U D G M E N T
      SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.
        1. This special leave petition impugns the  judgment  and  order
           dated 25th September, 2012 passed by the Gujarat  High  Court
           at Ahmedabad in Special Criminal Application No.1925 of 2010.
           By the aforesaid judgment, the High Court has  directed  that
           the investigation into the death of Amit Jethwa  (hereinafter
           referred to as ‘Jethwa’), a Right to Information activist  be
           investigated by the CBI  authorities  and  further  directing
           that the proceedings pursuant to the charge  sheet  submitted
           by the Gujarat Police shall remain stayed.


        2. The facts leading to the filing of the special leave petition
           out of which the present criminal appeal arises are as under:
           Jethwa had filed a Public Interest Litigation, SCA No.7690 of
      2010, against the State of Gujarat and others  with  the  following
      prayer:
           “The appellant therefore prays that your Lordship may be pleased
           to:
           a. Admit this petition.
           b. Issue a writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or
              any other appropriate writ order or direction  directing  the
              respondents to stop illegal mining within 5 kms  radius  from
              boundary of Gir Sanctuary.”
        3. In the aforesaid writ petition, Jethwa had given  details  of
           various activities of certain firms and individuals who  were
           indulging in illegal mining and destroying  the  biodiversity
           of natural habitat of Gir forest in Gujarat. This,  according
           to Jethwa, was  having  an  adverse  effect  on  the  natural
           habitat of the Asiatic Lions. He was  particularly  concerned
           with illegal mining within 5 kms radius from the boundary  of
           Gir Sanctuary Area. More  than  50  mines  in  the  names  of
           different persons were mentioned in the writ petition wherein
           illegal mining was alleged.   Enquiry  into  the  allegations
           made  by  Jethwa  was  in  progress  in  the  aforesaid  writ
           petition, when he was brutally murdered.


        4. Jethwa was the President of the  Gir  Nature  Youth  Club  at
           Khamba, Gujarat. He  had  been  active  in  fighting  against
           encroachment  of  forests   and   poaching.   He   was   also
           instrumental in  the  successful  prosecution  of  the  actor
           Salman Khan for shooting an endangered Chinkara deer. He  had
           also taken up cudgels against the actor  Aamir  Khan  when  a
           deer was used in a scene in  the  movie  Lagaan.  Apart  from
           this, Jethwa rigorously campaigned against  corruption  among
           officers of the Indian Forest Service and  opposed  the  mala
           fide application of Article 356 of the Constitution of India.
           In     2007,     he     had      drawn      attention      to
                the  mysterious  death  of  lions  in  the  Gir  Forest,
           including three that were shot within a few hundred meters of
           the Babariya forest guard outpost. Jethwa  had  claimed  that
           “such a thing cannot be  possible  without  support  of  some
           forest officials”. On that basis, he had sought suspension of
           a particular IFS Officer. The incident ultimately led to  the
           uncovering of a large lion poaching gang. He later campaigned
           against shifting of lions to the Kuno Wildlife  Sanctuary  in
           Madhya Pradesh.  According to him,  his  efforts  were  often
           blocked by forest officials by  charging  him  with  offences
           such as photographing a dead lion and trespassing.  In  2007,
           Jethwa contested the State  Assembly  elections  against  the
           appellant herein, but lost. In 2008, Jethwa was very actively
           involved in spreading awareness about  effectiveness  of  the
           Right to  Information  Act  for  addressing  grievances,  and
           conducted workshops on the procedure to file  requests  under
           RTI,  to   prevent   corrupt   practices   and   other   mal-
           administration. In 2010, Jethwa had filed a  Public  Interest
           Litigation (writ petition) questioning the inaction of  State
           Government over the appointment of Lokayukta. The High  Court
           directed the Government to appoint  Lokayukta.  He  had  also
           spearheaded the campaign against rising case pendency in  the
           Gujarat Information Commission due to lack of  commissioners.
           It was on his petition that the High Court gave direction  to
           the State Government to complete the  appointments  within  a
           stipulated  time.  He  again  came  to  the  rescue  of   RTI
           applicants by filing a writ petition in the  High  Court  and
           made the Government accept Indian Postal Order as one of  the
           modes of payment to deposit fees while filing  the  Right  to
           Information applications.


        5. We have narrated these facts just to indicate that Jethwa was
           a well known social activist interested in the protection  of
           environment, generally and the biodiversity of Gir Forest, in
           particular. This, according to him, was  urgently  needed  to
           protect the Asiatic Lions,  apart  from  usual  environmental
           issues.
        6. During the pendency of the public interest  litigation  filed
           by Jethwa, the name of the appellant and his  nephew  emerged
           as the powers behind the illegal mining mafia. Therefore,  by
           order dated 6th July, 2010,  the  appellant  and  his  nephew
           Pratap Bhai Solanki were  impleaded  by  the  High  Court  as
           respondents. The order dated 6th July, 2010 was served on the
           appellant on 19th July, 2010.

        7. It is the allegation of the  father  of  Jethwa  (hereinafter
           referred to as ‘Respondent No.6’) that the appellant  was  so
           incensed on  being  made  a  party  in  the  Public  Interest
           Litigation filed by  Jethwa  and  the  information  that  had
           surfaced during the course of hearing of that  writ  petition
           that he contracted/conspired with  some  unknown  persons  to
           eliminate Jethwa. In pursuance of this conspiracy, Jethwa was
           shot dead on the very next day, i.e. 20th July, 2010.
        8. According to the appellant, on the same date,  i.e       20th
           July,  2010,    the   electronic  media  began   broadcasting
           allegations of the Respondent No. 6 and some other interested
           parties that the appellant was behind the killing of  Jethwa.
           Incidentally, it must be noticed at this stage that according
           to the version of Respondent  No.6,  the  murder  took  place
           outside the Gujarat High Court whilst Jethwa was leaving  the
           chambers of his lawyer at 8.30 at night. In fact,  the  Press
           Statement was given on 21st July, 2010 by Dhirsinh  Barad,  a
           rival Congress MLA that the appellant might  be  involved  in
           the murder. Subsequently, when the statement of this MLA  was
           recorded in the High Court on 26th February, 2012, wherein he
           has stated that                 on 20th  July,  2010  he  had
           communicated to Shri B.M.Mangukia, Advocate who  incidentally
           was also a Secretary of Gujarat Congress,  that  as  per  his
           belief the appellant was involved in the  murder  of  Jethwa.
           The  investigation  was  conducted  in  accordance  with  the
           procedure prescribed in the Criminal Procedure Code.


        9. It appears that the Respondent No 6 was not satisfied and  he
           filed Special Criminal Application No.1925 of 2010 before the
           High Court. In this petition, Respondent No.6 sought transfer
           of  the  investigation  in  connection  with  FIR  No.   I-CR
           No.163/2010 dated 20th July, 2010 registered at  Sola  Police
           Station for commission of offences punishable under  Sections
           302, 114 of IPC read with Section 25(1) of Arms  Act,  to  an
           independent investigating agency, preferably CBI  or  Special
           Investigation Team comprising IPS Officers from  other  State
           cadre as well. On 19th October, 2011, the Gujarat High  Court
           passed the interim order directing further  investigation  to
           be conducted by the State of Gujarat under the supervision of
           Special Commissioner of Police Crime Branch (of the  rank  of
           Additional Director General of Police) and to submit a  final
           report of investigation  by 28th November, 2011.  In  passing
           the aforesaid order, it  is  pointed  out  by  the  appellant
           herein  that,  no  adverse   remarks   with   any   pre-drawn
           conclusions were made against him.


       10. In pursuance of the aforesaid order,  the  investigation  was
           handed over, on 11th November, 2011, to another officer, Shri
           Vatsa,  Superintendent  of  Police.  The  final  report   was
           submitted on 16th March, 2012 under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. It
           was pointed out by the appellant  that  nothing  beyond  mere
           suspicion had come on the record against the appellant so  as
           to make him accused of  any  conspiracy  to  assassinate  the
           deceased Jethwa. On 19th March, 2012,  the  final  report  of
           further investigation was filed  before  the  High  Court  on
           behalf of the State Government. The appellant  claims that in
           spite of extensive investigation, no circumstantial  evidence
           pointing out any involvement of the appellant  was  gathered,
           despite the grave suspicion of the relatives  of  Jethwa  and
           certain  political  rivals.  However,  due  to  the  pressure
           exerted  by  the  relatives  of  the  deceased  and   certain
           political rivals, a third charge-sheet was filed in the  FIR.


       11. In  the  order  impugned  before  us,  the  High  Court  upon
           consideration of the entire matter has come to the conclusion
           that investigation conducted by the Gujarat Police  authority
           is not free from doubt and that to instill confidence in  the
           public, it would be appropriate to transfer the investigation
           to CBI.
       12.    The present SLP was filed in this Court  on  8th  October,
           2012. Notice was issued in the SLP on 15th October, 2012. The
           investigation by the CBI was not stayed. The State of Gujarat
           had filed SLP (Crl.) NO.8292 of  2012  also  challenging  the
           transfer of the investigation to CBI.            This SLP was
           filed on 15th October, 2012. We may  also  notice  here  that
           Narendra Modi, who was then holding  the  portfolio  of  Home
           Ministry in Gujarat as well as being the Chief Minister,  was
           also impleaded as appellant No.2 in SLP (Crl.) 8292 of  2012.
           However, subsequently, he  was  deleted  from  the  array  of
           parties, by order of this  Court                        dated
           9th November, 2012.


       13. Leave granted.

       14.  Mr.  Rohatgi,  learned  senior  counsel  appearing  for  the
           appellant after making extensive references to  the  relevant
           parts of the impugned judgment has submitted  that  the  High
           Court has made  unwarranted  remarks  against  the  appellant
           which are bound to gravely prejudice his case at  the  trial.
           These remarks have been made in the absence of the appellant.
           The High Court did not make him a party; and has given an ex-
           parte judgment against the appellant. It is  per  se  illegal
           and, therefore, deserves to be set aside.   He  submits  that
           the matter has to be remanded back to the High Court with the
           direction that the appellant be made a party in Writ Petition
           SCA No.1925 of 2010. Thereafter the writ petition be re-heard
           and decided on merits in accordance with law.

       15. Mr. Rohatgi  then  submitted  that  the  appellant  had  been
           summoned to appear as a witness before the CBI.  Apprehending
           that the appellant will be arrested as  soon  as  he  appears
           before   the   CBI    in    response    to    the    summons,
                             Criminal Misc. Petition  No.22987  of  2013
           was filed by him seeking direction from this Court  that  the
           appellant will not be arrested in case he appears before  the
           CBI. The actual prayer made in the Application was that  this
           Court be pleased  to  “grant  stay  of  any  coercive  action
           against the  appellant  prejudicing  his  life  and  personal
           liberty, pursuant to the  impugned  ex  part  judgment  dated
           25.09.2012 passed by the Gujarat High Court in  SCA  1925  of
           2010 wherein CBI was inter alia directed to  investigate  and
           file report within 6 months.” This Court did not  accept  the
           prayer  made  by  the  appellant.  As  apprehended   by   the
           appellant, he was  immediately  arrested,  when  he  appeared
           before the CBI, in  response  to  the  summons  to  join  the
           investigation.

       16.  This action of the CBI, according to Mr. Rohatgi, was wholly
           illegal.  The  appellant  had  been  cooperating   with   the
           investigation throughout. The arrest  of  the  appellant  was
           politically motivated.
       17.   On 17th April, 2013, Status Report of the investigation  by
           the   CBI    was    produced    before    this    Court    by
           Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned  Additional  Solicitor  General.
           After perusal of the report, the court directed the  same  to
           be re-sealed  and  kept  with  the  record.  The  matter  was
           adjourned from time to time to enable the CBI to complete the
           investigation. Since his arrest, the appellant was  initially
           remanded to police custody.  Subsequently,  however,  he  was
           placed in judicial custody. The appellant continues to be  in
           jail till date. On 19th November, 2013 when the  matter  came
           up for further consideration, a submission was made on behalf
           of the CBI that “although the appellant is now  not  required
           for custodial interrogation, judicial  custody  needs  to  be
           continued as the investigation is  still  not  complete.”   A
           request was made that the matter be adjourned  for  at  least
           six weeks to enable the CBI to complete the investigation  in
           relation to the appellant. Since the appellant  had  been  in
           custody for a long time, it was  prayed  that  he  should  be
           released from custody. It was pointed out that the  appellant
           was required to perform his official  duties  as  an  elected
           member  of  the  Parliament.  However,  the  request  of  the
           appellant was rejected and CBI was granted some more time  to
           complete the investigation. It was made clear by  this  Court
           that the aforesaid direction would not preclude  the  CBI  to
           seek custodial interrogation of the appellant,  as  and  when
           required. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned from  time  to
           time.
       18. Mr. Rohatgi then submitted that in breach of  the  directions
           issued by this Court on 17th April, 2013, the CBI has filed a
           supplementary charge sheet in January, 2014, before the ACJM,
           Ahmedabad, instead of placing the report before this Court in
           a sealed cover. Relying  on  these  facts,  Mr.  Rohatgi  has
           submitted that the action of the CBI is  in  disobedience  of
           this order of this Court, and  therefore,  the  charge  sheet
           itself needs to be set aside, as it has  been  filed  without
           the permission of this Court.


       19. Mr.  Rohatgi  then  submitted  that  in  case  the  aforesaid
           submissions are not accepted, the  prejudicial  remarks  made
           against the appellant need to be expunged as the remarks have
           been made without making him a party. He submitted  that  the
           remarks have damned the appellant as  the  main  conspirator.
           Such adverse remarks, according to              Mr.  Rohatgi,
           can have no legal effect, having been made in breach  of  the
           Rules of Natural  Justice  i.e.  the  rule  of  audi  alteram
           Partem. He pointed out  that  the  appellant  has  also  been
           referred to as accused No.1, without any justification.
       20. Mr. Rohatgi emphasized that  the  judgment  is  replete  with
           prejudicial remarks. He has been described as a  person  with
           criminal antecedents. He is stated to have been involved  and
           named in several  police  complaints  and  FIRs  for  serious
           offences, including attempt to murder and  murder.  The  High
           Court  has  also  observed  that  many  offences  have   been
           committed at the behest of the appellant. But almost all such
           complaints and FIRs have terminated  in  summary  reports.  A
           long list of the cases in which the appellant has been  found
           to be not involved was placed before the High Court. The High
           Court has further observed that the crusade of  the  deceased
           Jethwa against the illegal empire of the appellant herein was
           the cause for the murder  of  Jethwa.  The  High  Court  also
           observed  that  the  appellant  herein   was   managing   the
                              entire investigation.  The police did  not
           even  record  the  statements  of  numerous  persons  as  the
           statements would have  pointed  an  accusing  finger  at  the
           appellant for being responsible  for  the  death  of  Jethwa.
           Relying on the observations recorded  in  the  judgment,  Mr.
           Rohatgi  submits  that  unless  the  same  are  expunged  the
           appellant cannot possibly expect a fair trial.


       21. Mr. Rohatgi has relied on the following judgments in  support
           of his submission.
           Divine  Retreat   Centre   Vs.   State   of   Kerala[1];   D.
           Venkatasubramaniam Vs. M. K. Mohan  Krishnamachari[2];  State
           of Punjab Vs. Davinder  Pal  Singh  Bhullar  &  Ors.[3];  Ms.
           Mayawati Vs. Union of India & Ors.[4];  Union  of  India  Vs.
           W.N.Chadha[5].


       22. Lastly, it is submitted by Mr. Rohatgi that the appellant has
           been firstly in police custody and subsequently  in  judicial
           custody since the arrest on 5th November, 2013 till now.  The
           appellant is a sitting Member of the Parliament  and  has  to
           perform his duties as an MP in the Parliament, as well as his
           Constituency. The appellant has  been  cooperating  with  the
           investigation throughout.  There  is  no  likelihood  of  the
           appellant  absconding  as  he  has  deep  roots  in  society,
           particularly in the area that is represented by him as an  MP
           in the Parliament. Learned senior counsel  further  submitted
           that although CBI has filed the charge sheet, copies  of  all
           the statements of witnesses have not been made  available  to
           the appellant, on the ground that  it  is  a  very  sensitive
           matter. According to Mr. Rohatgi, the CBI has wrongly  relied
           on Section 173(6) of  the  Cr.P.C.  He  reiterated  that  the
           arrest of the appellant was  totally  illegal  as  it  is  in
           disobedience of the orders  passed  by  this  Court  on  15th
           March, 2013; 10th April, 2013 and 17th April,  2013.  He  has
           also reiterated the submission that the  appellant  has  been
           arrested maliciously as a result of political vendetta.   Mr.
           Rohatgi also submitted  that  apprehending  the  arrest,  the
           appellant had moved Criminal  Misc.  Petition  No.  22987  of
           2013, but this Court had declined to give any directions.


       23. He also pointed out that the appellant has  been  elected  as
           Member of Legislative  Assembly,  Gujarat  for  three  terms.
           Thereafter, the  appellant  has  successfully  contested  the
           Parliamentary election as an official candidate of  the  BJP.
           Therefore, as it was found by his political rivals  that  the
           appellant cannot be destabilized by a  popular  vote,  he  is
           being dragged into this case to cause maximum damage  to  his
           image and political career.  Mr. Rohatgi further pointed  out
           that the timing of issuance of summons by the  CBI  coincided
           not only with the Diwali festival but, also with the  ensuing
           Parliamentary election, as  well  as  the  assembly  election
           which had been declared in five States. He submitted that the
           appellant,  therefore,   reasonably   apprehends   that   the
           opposition is trying to maliciously  gain  maximum  political
           mileage, by getting him involved in the murder case.


       24. Learned senior counsel further pointed out that  on  the  one
           hand, the family of the appellant was  grieving  due  to  the
           death of his elder brother on 8th October, 2013; on the other
           hand, the letter of the CBI  dated  25th  October,  2013  was
           handed over to his younger brother asking  the  appellant  to
           remain present  on  29th  October,  2013                   at
           11.00 a.m.  before  the  Investigating  Officer.  The  family
           members of the appellant on the date of  the  filing  of  the
           application, i.e. 28th October, 2013, were occupied with  the
           after-death ceremonies of his deceased brother. At  the  same
           time, immediately with the issuance of  the  summons  by  the
           CBI, adverse  media  trial  and  propaganda  had  started  in
           various  news  channels  and  the  Newspapers   against   the
           appellant. It is also pointed out by Mr. Rohatgi that the CBI
           has commenced the investigation in  October  2012  and  since
           then the appellant has continued to be in active public life.
           He has also attended Parliament as a Member of the Parliament
           in the 13th, 14th and 15th Session of the Lok Sabha  held  on
           4th September, 2013, 5th September, 2013 and  6th  September,
           2013. The appellant has also participated in  various  public
           welfare  functions  during  this  period.  In  spite  of  the
           aforesaid, the appellant has been illegally deprived  of  his
           personal liberty and fundamental rights under Articles 14 and
           21 of the Constitution  of  India.  He  reiterated  that  the
           appellant had made a prayer               in  Crl.  M.P.  No.
           22987 of 2013 that no coercive steps  be  taken  against  the
           appellant. Since the prayer made by  the  appellant  was  not
           accepted, the CBI used  this  as  an  excuse  to  arrest  the
           appellant. Given the entire fact situation as narrated  above
           and the fact that the appellant has not been given copies  of
           all the statements collected by  the  CBI,  there  is  little
           likelihood of the  appellant  tampering  with  the  evidence.
           Since  the  CBI  has  submitted   the   charge   sheet,   the
           investigation is complete. Therefore,  it  would  be  in  the
           interest of justice that the appellant  is  now  released  on
           bail, during the pendency of the trial.


       25.   Mr. J.S. Attri, learned senior counsel, appearing  for  the
           CBI has submitted that the status report has  been  submitted
           to this Court. Upon  completion  of  the  investigation,  the
           charge sheet has also been submitted in court. It is  further
           submitted that there is no violation of the orders dated 15th
           March, 2013, 10th April, 2013 and the order dated 17th April,
           2013,  which  directed  that  the  report  produced  by   the
           Additional Solicitor General be  sealed  and  kept  with  the
           record. There is no direction to the  CBI  not  to  file  the
           charge sheet without leave of the court.


      26.     Ms.  Kamini  Jaiswal  appearing  for  respondent  No.6  has
      submitted that  the  question  as  to  whether  the  appellant  was
      required to be heard before the investigation is transferred to the
      CBI is  no  longer  res  integra.  She  submitted  that  the  State
      hierarchy was actively involved in influencing the investigation by
      the State Police, which is evident from the fact that Mr. Narendera
      Modi was Appellant No.2 in Criminal Appeal No. _______@ SLP  (Crl.)
      No.8292 of 2012. He was subsequently  deleted  from  the  array  of
      parties by an order of this Court. His removal from  the  array  of
      parties makes no difference. Ms. Jaiswal has submitted that in fact
      the appellant has no locus standi to file the  present  appeal.  At
      the most, according to her, he is a proposed accused or a  suspect.
      She submits that it is a settled proposition of  law  and  criminal
      jurisprudence that an accused has no right to be heard at the stage
      of investigation. The appellant in the present case is a  potential
      suspect. Therefore,  he  has  no  locus  standi  to  challenge  the
      judgment of the High Court, transferring the investigation  to  the
      CBI in exercise of its powers under Section 173(8) of  the  Cr.P.C.
      She submits  that  the  High  Court  has  come  to  a  prima  facie
      conclusion  that  the  original  investigation  and   the   further
      investigation are far from satisfactory. Both investigations lacked
      transparency and, therefore, the Court has rightly  concluded  that
      the investigation conducted by the State  Police  did  not  inspire
      confidence. She submits that the High Court has committed no  error
      in not making the appellant a party in the writ petition  filed  by
      respondent No.6 seeking transfer  of  the  investigation  from  the
      State Police and the Special Commissioner, Crime Detection  Branch,
      Ahmedabad to the CBI. The rule of audi alteram partem would not  be
      applicable at that stage. She submits that the investigation has to
      be conducted in accordance with Sections 154 to 176 of the Cr.P.C.,
      wherein no provision is made for the applicability of  the  concept
      of audi alteram partem. In other words, at no stage till the charge
      sheet is submitted the suspect or proposed accused  can  claim  any
      constitutional or legal right  to  be  heard.  In  support  of  her
      submissions, she relied on the judgment of  this  Court  in  W.  N.
      Chadha (supra), Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.  Vs.  Rajesh
      Gandhi & Anr.[6], Sri Bhagwan Samardha  Sreepada  Vallabha  Venkata
      Vishwanandha Maharaj Vs. State of A.P. & Ors.[7], Narender G.  Goel
      Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.[8]  She also relies on the judgment
      in the case of Divine Retreat (supra).


      27.  She further submitted that even  though  the  High  Court  has
      given elaborate details in support of the conclusions  to  transfer
      the investigation to CBI, it does not mean that  the  remarks  were
      not necessary for coming to such a conclusion. She submits that the
      facts in this case were glaring. Jethwa has relentlessly campaigned
      against illegal mining within the prohibited 5 km zone of  the  Gir
      Forest Sanctuary. This sanctuary is the only habitat of the Asiatic
      Lions. Jethwa had managed to uncover a deep  rooted  conspiracy  to
      continue  illegal  mining  in  the  prohibited  zones.  He  was  in
      possession  of  evidence  which  would  have  directly  linked  the
      appellant to the illegal mining. The appellant and his nephew  were
      impleaded as parties in the public interest litigation, SCA No.7690
      of 2010 by order dated 6th July,  2010.  The  aforesaid  order  was
      served on the appellant on 19th July, 2010. Within 24 hours  Jethwa
      was killed whilst he was coming out of the chamber of his lawyer.


      28. She further pointed out that a perusal of the judgment  of  the
      High Court would show that the investigation conducted by the State
      Police and subsequent further investigation was wholly tainted  and
      one sided. Therefore, the High Court had  rightly  transferred  the
      case to the CBI. She further submitted that the remarks made by the
      High Court were wholly justified for coming to the conclusion  that
      the investigation  must  be  transferred  to  the  CBI  to  inspire
      confidence.
      29.  She next submitted that the investigation has  been  completed
      and the charge sheet has been filed. The appellant will  have  full
      opportunity to defend himself at the trial. She submitted that  the
      present  appeal  deserves  to  be  dismissed   as   having   become
      infructuous.

      30.  Lastly, she submitted that although the appellant is an MP  he
      is  involved  in  several  criminal  cases.  His  influence  is  so
      pervasive that he has been declared to be innocent in all the other
      criminal cases, excepting one. It is only in the present case  that
      he is sought to be put on trial. She has submitted  that  even  the
      nephew of the appellant Shiva Solanki  was  only  arrested  on  7th
      September, 2010; he had been absconding  for  45  days  whilst  the
      investigation was in progress. The further investigation  conducted
      by Sh. Vatsa, IPS, Superintendent of Police has been  found  to  be
      tainted by the Court. The High Court found that the facts stated by
      Sh. Vatsa in the final report did not inspire confidence as it  did
      not even point out the close proximity of  Shiva  Solanki  and  the
      appellant. These reports also point out the interaction between the
      uncle and nephew before and after the crime. In fact,  Vatsa  never
      applied for custodial interrogation of the appellant.  She  further
      submitted that the High Court noticed that the police  man  who  is
      the first informant can not be an  eye  witness  to  the  incident.
      Surprisingly, the FIR was not  recorded  at  the  instance  of  any
      member of his family. She submits that the High Court has correctly
      come to the conclusion that the initial and further  investigations
      suffered from so many lapses and lacunae that it could not possibly
      inspire confidence.


      31.  Opposing the prayer for bail, Ms. Jaiswal submitted  that  the
      appellant is a very powerful person, not only because he is an  MP,
      but because he is a kingpin in the criminal mafia operating  within
      the Gir Sanctuary which is meant  for  protection  of  the  Asiatic
      Lions, apart from many other rare species of animal life as well as
      flora and fauna. In case, he is allowed out on bail  the  appellant
      is most likely to put pressure on  the  prosecution  witnesses  and
      weaken the case of the prosecution. She submits that the family  of
      the deceased is entitled to the satisfaction that the brazen murder
      of the deceased was not only fairly investigated, but also  a  fair
      trial was conducted. She further submitted that earlier application
      of the bail of the appellant having been  dismissed  by  the  trial
      court no special treatment could be given  to  the  appellant.  His
      application for bail in this Court is not maintainable.


      32.   Mr. Rohatgi in reply has submitted  that  Narendra  Modi  had
      been made appellant No.2 by mistake. The mistake was corrected  and
      his name was deleted from the array of parties on 9.11.2012 by  the
      order of this Court. His name is unnecessarily being  mentioned  in
      these proceedings.


      33. We have considered the submissions made by the learned  counsel
      for the parties.


      34. Before we examine the submissions made by the  learned  counsel
      for the parties, it would be  appropriate  to  notice  the  various
      authorities cited by them. In Divine Retreat Centre  (supra),  this
      Court held that considering the question as  to  whether  even  the
      High Court can set the law in motion against the named and  unnamed
      individuals  based  on  the  information  received  by  it  without
      recording the reasons that the information  received  by  it  prima
      facie disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence.  This Court
      observed that  “the  High  Court  in  exercise  of  its  whatsoever
      jurisdiction cannot direct investigation by constituting a  special
      investigating team on the strength of anonymous petitions. The High
      Court cannot be converted into station  houses.”  The  observations
      made in para 51, on which heavy reliance has  been  placed  by  Mr.
      Rohatgi, show that the High Court had sought  to  turn  the  Divine
      Retreat Centre into  an  accused  on  the  basis  of  an  anonymous
      complaint in exercise of its power under Section  482.  Keeping  in
      view the peculiar facts of that case, it is observed as follows :
           “54. Here is a case where no information has been given  to  the
           police by any informant alleging commission  of  any  cognizable
           offence by the appellant and the  persons  associated  with  the
           appellant institution. It is a peculiar case  of  its  own  kind
           where an anonymous petition is sent directly in the  name  of  a
           learned Judge of the Kerala High Court, which was suo motu taken
           up as a proceeding under Section 482 of the Code. The High Court
           ought not to have entertained such a  petition  for  taking  the
           same on file under Section 482 of the Code.”




      35.   It was for the aforesaid reason that this Court  observed  as
      follows:
           “51. The order directing the investigation on the basis of  such
           vague and indefinite allegations undoubtedly is in the teeth  of
           principles of natural justice. It was, however,  submitted  that
           the accused gets a right of hearing only after submission of the
           charge-sheet, before a  charge  is  framed  or  the  accused  is
           discharged vide Sections 227 and 228 and 239 and 240  CrPC.  The
           appellant is not an accused and, therefore, it was not  entitled
           for any notice  from  the  High  Court  before  passing  of  the
           impugned order. We are concerned with the question as to whether
           the High Court could have  passed  a  judicial  order  directing
           investigation against the appellant and its  activities  without
           providing an opportunity of being heard to it. The case on  hand
           is a case where the criminal law is directed to be set in motion
           on the basis of the allegations made in anonymous petition filed
           in the High Court. No judicial order can ever be passed  by  any
           court without providing a reasonable opportunity of being  heard
           to  the  person  likely  to  be  affected  by  such  order   and
           particularly when such order results in drastic consequences  of
           affecting one’s own reputation. In our view, the impugned  order
           of the High  Court  directing  enquiry  and  investigation  into
           allegations   in    respect    of    which    not    even    any
           complaint/information  has  been  lodged  with  the  police   is
           violative of principles of natural justice.”


      36.   These observations would not be applicable in  the  facts  of
      this case. The criminal law has not been set in motion on the basis
      of an anonymous complaint. The investigation has  been  transferred
      to the CBI, in a petition under Article  226  of  the  Constitution
      filed by none other than the father of the victim who suspects that
      his son was murdered at the instance of the appellant  herein.  The
      facts have been elaborately narrated by the High Court as  well  as
      by us.  It is apparent that the fact situation  in  Divine  Retreat
      Centre is wholly distinguishable from the present case.


      37.    In  D.Venkatasubramaniam  (supra),  again  this  Court   was
      concerned with the erroneous exercise of its inherent powers  under
      Section 482, Cr. P.C. by the High Court. This Court reiterated  the
      observations made in Divine Retreat Centre (supra).  It  was  inter
      alia observed as follows :
           “34. The High Court in the present case, without  realising  the
           consequences, issued  directions  in  a  casual  and  mechanical
           manner without hearing the appellants. The impugned order  is  a
           nullity and liable to be set aside only on that score.


           35. We are not impressed by the submission made by  the  learned
           counsel for the respondent that the High Court did not issue any
           directions  but  merely  disposed  of  the  petition  with   the
           observations reminding the police of its duty. The question that
           arises for consideration is whether there was  any  occasion  or
           necessity to make those “observations” even if they  are  to  be
           considered to be observations and not any directions. It is  not
           even remotely suggested that there was any  deliberate  inaction
           or failure in the matter of discharge of duties by  the  police.
           There was no allegation of any subversion of  processes  of  law
           facilitating the accused  to  go  scot-free  nor  is  there  any
           finding as such recorded by the High Court in its order.”

      38.  From the above, it becomes apparent that the  High  Court  had
      passed the order in a mechanical manner. Further more, it  was  not
      even remotely suggested that there was any deliberate  inaction  or
      failure in the matter of discharge of duties by the police. In  the
      present case, the appellant before the High Court  was  none  other
      than the father of the deceased. It was a cry for justice made by a
      person whose son has been brazenly murdered.  Failure of  the  High
      Court to take notice on such a plea, in  our  opinion,  would  have
      resulted in injustice to the father of  the  victim  who  was  only
      seeking a fair and impartial investigation into  the  circumstances
      leading to the murder of his son. The petition has  been  filed  by
      the father seeking redressal of the grievance under Articles 14, 21
      and 226 of the Constitution of India. The father  of  the  deceased
      had filed the petition on the grounds that the State is  under  the
      obligation to ensure the rule of law. It was stated that  the  rule
      of law can be maintained only by fair,  impartial  and  independent
      investigation by the law and order  enforcement  agency,  in  every
      reported incidents of commission of offence.  It  was  emphatically
      stated that the investigation into the murder  of  Jethwa  was  not
      taking place independently and impartially due to  extra-legal  and
      extraneous considerations.  The  Respondent  No.6,  father  of  the
      murdered victim, had prayed before the High Court that his right to
      equality  before  the  law  guaranteed  by  Article   14   of   the
      Constitution of India was being violated as  the  appellant  herein
      was being protected by the investigating agency  because  he  is  a
      member of Parliament, and he belongs to the  political  party  that
      was in power in the State. In the light of the aforesaid, the ratio
      of judgment in            D.  Venkatasubramanium  (supra),  in  our
      opinion, is also not applicable in the facts of this case.


      39.  Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar (supra) is a  very  peculiar  case.
      This Court examined a situation where the High Court suo  motu  re-
      opened the proceedings which had been closed, and  the  High  Court
      had become functus-officio. This Court after noticing the  peculiar
      fact situation, observed as follows:
           “The impugned order dated 5.10.2007 though gives  an  impression
           that the High Court was trying to procure the  presence  of  the
           proclaimed offenders but, in fact, it was to target  the  police
           officers, who had conducted the inquiry against Mr.  Justice  X.
           The order reads that particular persons  were  eliminated  in  a
           false encounter by the police and it was to be ascertained as to
           who were the police officers responsible for it,  so  that  they
           could be brought to justice.”




      40.   Clearly, therefore, in such circumstances this  Court  struck
      down the directions. This Court  also  notices  that  although  the
      proceedings before the High Court were ostensibly  to  procure  the
      presence of the proclaimed offenders  but  in  essence  it  was  an
      enquiry to ascertain as to who were the police officers responsible
      for certain false encounters. It is well  settled  that  the  Court
      cannot order a roving enquiry and direct the  investigation  to  be
      carried out by the CBI without any basis. This  court  was  dealing
      with the cases where the investigators of the crime were sought  to
      be converted into accused. Such are not the  circumstances  in  the
      present case.  Thus, the reliance placed upon  Davinder  Pal  Singh
      Bhullar’s case (supra) is misplaced.


      41.  In the case of Ms. Mayawati (supra), the  question  raised  in
      the writ petition filed under Article 32  of  the  Constitution  of
      India was as to whether the FIR registered  against  the  appellant
      therein to investigate into the matter of alleged  disproportionate
      assets of the appellant and other officers was beyond the scope  of
      the directions passed  by  this  Court  in  the  order  dated  18th
      September,  2003  in  M.C.Mehta  Vs.  Union  of  India.  Upon   the
      examination of the entire situation, it was held by this Court that
      the FIR registered against the appellant  therein  was  beyond  the
      directions issued by this court in M.C.Mehta  and,  therefore,  was
      without authority of law.

      42.   Undoubtedly, the essence of criminal  justice  system  is  to
      reach the truth. The underlying principle is that whilst the guilty
      must not escape punishment; no innocent person  shall  be  punished
      unless  the  guilt  of  the  suspect/accused  is   established   in
      accordance with  law.  All  suspects/accused  are  presumed  to  be
      innocent till their guilt is proved beyond reasonable  doubt  in  a
      trial conducted according to the procedure  prescribed  under  law.
      Fair, unbiased and transparent investigation is a sine quo non  for
      protecting the accused. Being dissatisfied with the manner in which
      the investigation was being conducted, the  father  of  the  victim
      filed the petition seeking an impartial investigation.


      43.    Now   we   shall   consider   the   judgments    cited    by
      Ms. Kamini Jaiswal.


      44.   In W.N.Chadha (supra), the High Court  had  quashed  and  set
      aside the order passed by  the  Special  Judge,  in-charge  of  CBI
      matters issuing the order rogatory, on the application of  a  named
      accused in the  FIR,                               Mr.  W.N.Chadha.
      The High Court held that the  order  issuing  letter  rogatory  was
      passed in breach of principles of natural justice. In appeal,  this
      Court held as follows :-
           “89. Applying the above principle, it may be held that when  the
           investigating  officer  is  not  deciding  any   matter   except
           collecting the materials for ascertaining whether a prima  facie
           case is made out or not and a full enquiry in case of  filing  a
           report under Section 173(2) follows in a trial before the  Court
           or Tribunal pursuant to the filing of the report, it  cannot  be
           said that at that stage rule of audi alteram partem superimposes
           an obligation to issue a prior notice and hear the accused which
           the statute does not expressly recognise. The  question  is  not
           whether  audi  alteram  partem  is  implicit,  but  whether  the
           occasion for its attraction exists at all.”


           “92. More so, the accused has  no  right  to  have  any  say  as
           regards the manner  and  method  of  investigation.  Save  under
           certain exceptions under the entire  scheme  of  the  Code,  the
           accused has no participation as a matter  of  right  during  the
           course of the investigation of a case  instituted  on  a  police
           report till the investigation culminates in filing  of  a  final
           report under Section 173(2) of  the  Code  or  in  a  proceeding
           instituted otherwise than on a police report till the process is
           issued under Section 204 of the Code, as the case may  be.  Even
           in cases where cognizance of an offence is taken on a  complaint
           notwithstanding that the said offence is triable by a Magistrate
           or triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, the accused has
           no right to have participation till the process  is  issued.  In
           case the issue of process is  postponed  as  contemplated  under
           Section 202 of the Code, the accused may attend  the  subsequent
           inquiry but  cannot  participate.  There  are  various  judicial
           pronouncements to this  effect  but  we  feel  that  it  is  not
           necessary to recapitulate those decisions. At the same time,  we
           would like to point out that there are certain provisions  under
           the Code empowering the Magistrate to  give  an  opportunity  of
           being heard under certain specified circumstances.”


           “98. If prior notice and an opportunity of  hearing  are  to  be
           given to an accused in every criminal  case  before  taking  any
           action  against  him,  such  a  procedure  would  frustrate  the
           proceedings,  obstruct  the  taking  of  prompt  action  as  law
           demands, defeat the ends of justice and make the  provisions  of
           law relating to the investigation  lifeless,  absurd  and  self-
           defeating.  Further,  the  scheme  of  the  relevant   statutory
           provisions relating to the procedure of investigation  does  not
           attract such a course in the absence of any statutory obligation
           to the contrary.”


           These observations make it abundantly clear that it would not
      be necessary to give an opportunity  of  hearing  to  the  proposed
      accused as a matter of course. The court cautioned  that  if  prior
      notice and an opportunity of hearing have  to  be  given  in  every
      criminal case before taking any action against the accused  person,
      it  would  frustrate  the  entire   objective   of   an   effective
      investigation. In the present case, the appellant was not  even  an
      accused at the time when the impugned order was passed by the  High
      Court. Finger of suspicion had been pointed  at  the  appellant  by
      independent witnesses as well as  by  the  grieved  father  of  the
      victim.
      45.  In Rajesh Gandhi’s case (supra), this Court  again  reiterated
      the law as follows :
           “8. There  is  no  merit  in  the  pleas  raised  by  the  first
           respondent either. The decision to investigate or  the  decision
           on  the  agency  which  should  investigate,  does  not  attract
           principles of natural justice. The accused cannot have a say  in
           who should investigate the offences he is charged with. We  also
           fail to see any provision of law for recording reasons for  such
           a decision…………….There is no provision in law under which,  while
           granting consent or extending the powers and jurisdiction of the
           Delhi Special Police Establishment to the specified State and to
           any specified case any reasons are required to  be  recorded  on
           the face of the notification. The learned Single  Judge  of  the
           Patna High  Court  was  clearly  in  error  in  holding  so.  If
           investigation by the local police is not satisfactory, a further
           investigation is not precluded. In the present case the material
           on record shows that the investigation by the local  police  was
           not [pic]satisfactory. In fact the  local  police  had  filed  a
           final report before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad.  The
           report, however, was pending and had not been accepted when  the
           Central Government with the  consent  of  the  State  Government
           issued the impugned notification. As a result, the CBI has  been
           directed to further investigate the  offences  registered  under
           the said FIR with the consent of the  State  Government  and  in
           accordance with law. Under Section 173(8) of the CrPC 1973 also,
           there is an analogous provision  for  further  investigation  in
           respect of an offence after a report under sub-section  (2)  has
           been forwarded to the Magistrate.”


           The aforesaid observations would clearly support  the  course
      adopted by the High Court in this matter. We have  earlier  noticed
      that the High Court had initially directed that  the  investigation
      be carried under the supervision of  the  Special  Commissioner  of
      Police, Crime Branch,  of  the  rank  of  the  Additional  Director
      General of Police. It was only when  the  High  Court  was  of  the
      opinion that even further investigation was not impartial,  it  was
      transferred to the CBI.
      46.   Again in Sri Bhagwan Samardha (supra), this Court observed as
      follows :
           “10. Power of the police to conduct further investigation, after
           laying final report, is recognised under Section 173(8)  of  the
           Code of Criminal Procedure. Even after the court took cognizance
           of any offence on  the  strength  of  the  police  report  first
           submitted,  it  is  open  to  the  police  to  conduct   further
           investigation. This has been so stated by this Court in Ram  Lal
           Narang v. State (Delhi Admn.)1. The only rider provided  by  the
           aforesaid decision is that it would be desirable that the police
           should inform the court  and  seek  formal  permission  to  make
           further investigation.


           11. In such a situation the power of the  court  to  direct  the
           police  to  conduct  further  investigation  cannot   have   any
           inhibition. There is nothing in Section 173(8) to  suggest  that
           the court is  obliged  to  hear  the  accused  before  any  such
           direction is made. Casting of any such obligation on  the  court
           would only result in encumbering the court with  the  burden  of
           searching for all the potential accused to be afforded with  the
           opportunity of being heard. As the law does not require  it,  we
           would not burden the Magistrate with such an obligation.”


           These observations also make  it  clear  that  there  was  no
      obligation for the High  Court  to  either  hear  or  to  make  the
      appellant a party to the  proceedings  before  directing  that  the
      investigation be conducted by the CBI.


      47.   We had earlier noticed that the High Court had  come  to  the
      prima facie conclusion that  the  investigation  conducted  by  the
      police was with the motive to give a clear chit to  the  appellant,
      inspite of the statements made by the independent witnesses as well
      as the allegations made by the father of the  deceased.  The  legal
      position has been reiterated by this Court in the case of  Narender
      G. Goel (supra):
           “11. It is well settled that the accused  has  no  right  to  be
           heard at  the  stage  of  investigation.  The  prosecution  will
           however have to prove its case at the  trial  when  the  accused
           will have full opportunity to rebut/question  the  validity  and
           authenticity of the prosecution case. In  Sri  Bhagwan  Samardha
           Sreepada Vallabha Venkata Vishwanandha Maharaj v. State of  A.P.
           this Court observed: (SCC p. 743, para 11)
                 “11. … There is nothing in Section 173(8) to  suggest  that
                 the court is obliged to hear the accused  before  any  such
                 direction is made. Casting of any such  obligation  on  the
                 court would only result in encumbering the court  with  the
                 burden of searching for all the  potential  accused  to  be
                 afforded with the opportunity of being heard.”


           12. The accused can certainly avail himself of an opportunity to
           cross-examine  and/or  otherwise  controvert  the  authenticity,
           admissibility  or  legal  significance  of   material   evidence
           gathered in the course of  further  investigations.  Further  in
           light of the views expressed by the investigating officer in his
           affidavit before  the  High  Court,  it  is  apparent  that  the
           investigating  authorities  would  inevitably   have   conducted
           further investigation with the`` aid of CFS under Section 173(8)
           of the Code.


           13. We are of the view that what is the evidentiary value can be
           tested during the trial. At this juncture it would not be proper
           to interfere in the matter.”


      48.   Again in the case of Narmada Bai (supra),  this  Court  after
      reviewing the entire body of case law concluded as follows :
           “64. The above decisions and the principles stated therein  have
           been referred to and  followed  by  this  Court  in  Rubabbuddin
           Sheikh1 where also it was held that considering  the  fact  that
           the allegations have been  levelled  against  high-level  police
           officers,  despite  the  investigation  made   by   the   police
           authorities of the State of Gujarat,  ordered  investigation  by
           CBI. Without entering into the allegations levelled by either of
           the parties, we are of the view that it  would  be  prudent  and
           advisable  to  transfer  the  investigation  to  an  independent
           agency. It is trite law that the accused persons do not  have  a
           say in the matter of appointment of an investigation agency. The
           accused persons cannot choose as to which  investigation  agency
           must investigate the alleged offence committed by them.”


      49.   We may also notice here the observations made by  this  Court
      in Mohd. Anis Vs. Union of India[9], wherein  this  Court  held  as
      follows :
           “5. … Fair and impartial investigation by an independent agency,
           not involved  in  the  controversy,  is  the  demand  of  public
           interest.  If  the  investigation  is  by  an  agency  which  is
           allegedly  privy  to  the  dispute,  the  credibility   of   the
           investigation will be doubted and that will be contrary  to  the
           public interest as well as the interest  of  justice.”  (SCC  p.
           148, para 5)


                 “2. … Doubts were expressed regarding the fairness  of  the
                 investigation as it was feared that as the local police was
                 alleged to be involved in the encounters, the investigation
                 by an officer of the U.P. Cadre may not be impartial.” (SCC
                 p. 147, para 2)”


      50.   At this stage, we would like  to  reiterate  the  well  known
      principles on the basis of a previous judgment can be treated as  a
      precedent. The most important principles have been  culled  out  by
      this Court in Bank of India & Anr. Vs. K.Mohandas  &  Ors.[10]   as
      follows:
           “54. A word about precedents, before we deal with the  aforesaid
           observations. The classic statement of Earl of Halsbury, L.C. in
           Quinn v. Leathem, is worth recapitulating first: (AC p. 506)


              “… before discussing … Allen v. Flood and  what  was  decided
              therein, there are two observations of  a  general  character
              which I wish to make, and one is to repeat what I  have  very
              often said before,  that  every  judgment  must  be  read  as
              applicable to the particular facts proved, or assumed  to  be
              proved, since the generality of the expressions which may  be
              found there are not intended to be expositions of  the  whole
              law, but are governed and qualified by the  particular  facts
              of the case in which such expressions are to  be  found.  The
              other is that a  case  is  only  an  authority  for  what  it
              actually decides. I entirely deny that it can be quoted for a
              proposition that may seem to follow logically from it. Such a
              mode of reasoning assumes  that  the  law  is  necessarily  a
              logical code, whereas every lawyer must acknowledge that  the
              law is not always logical at all.”
                                        (emphasis supplied)


           This Court has in long line  of  cases  followed  the  aforesaid
           statement of law.


           55. In  State  of  Orissa  v.  Sudhansu  Sekhar  Misra9  it  was
           observed: (AIR p. 651, para 13)


              “13. … A decision is only an authority for what  it  actually
              decides. What is of the essence in a decision  is  its  ratio
              and not every observation found therein  nor  what  logically
              follows from the various observations made in it.”


           56. In the words of Lord Denning:


              “Each case depends on its own facts and  a  close  similarity
              between one case and another is not  enough  because  even  a
              single significant detail may alter  the  entire  aspect.  In
              deciding such cases,  one  should  avoid  the  temptation  to
              decide cases (as said by Cardozo) by matching the  colour  of
              one case against the colour of another. To decide, therefore,
              on which side of the line a case falls, the broad resemblance
              to another case is not at all decisive.”


           57. It was highlighted by this Court in Ambica Quarry  Works  v.
           State of Gujarat: (SCC p. 221, para 18)


              “18. … The ratio of any decision must be  understood  in  the
              background of the facts of that case. It has been  said  long
              time ago that a  case  is  only  an  authority  for  what  it
              actually decides, and not what logically follows from it.”


           58. In Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. this
           Court held that a little difference in facts or additional facts
           may make a lot of difference in  the  precedential  value  of  a
           decision.


           59. This Court in Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. N.R. Vairamani
           emphasised  that  the  courts  should  not  place  reliance   on
           decisions without discussing as to  how  the  factual  situation
           fits in with  the  fact  situation  of  the  decision  on  which
           reliance is placed. It was further observed that  the  judgments
           of  courts  are  not  to  be  construed  as  statutes  and   the
           observations must be read in the context in which they appear to
           have been stated. The Court went on to say  that  circumstantial
           applicability, one additional or different fact may make a world
           of difference between conclusions in two cases.”




      51.  Keeping in view the aforesaid principles, we  are  constrained
      to hold that the ratio of the judgment cited by the appellant would
      not be applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case.
      52.   We can now proceed to examine the factual  situation  in  the
      present case.


      53.   We are not much impressed by  the  submissions  made  by  Mr.
      Rohtagi that the High Court has unnecessarily  cast  aspersions  of
      criminality on the appellant. In Paragraph 10 of the judgment,  the
      High Court has observed as follows:-
           “All the above circumstances put  together  indicated  that  the
           investigation was      controlled from the stage of  registering
           the FIR and only the  clues  provided  by  the  accused  persons
           themselves were  investigated  to  close  the  investigation  by
           filing Charge-sheet No.158 of 2010 dated 10.11.2010 and  further
           investigation  had  not  served  any  purpose.   Therefore,  the
           investigation with the lapses and lacunae as  also  the  unusual
           acts of omission and commission did not and  could  not  inspire
           confidence.  It may not  be  proper  and  advisable  to  further
           critically examine the charge-sheet  already  submitted  by  the
           police, as some of the accused persons are already arrested  and
           shown as accused persons and even charge is  yet  to  be  framed
           against them.  The facts and averments discussed in paragraphs 6
           and 7 hereinabove also amply support  the  conclusion  that  the
           investigation all  throughout  was  far  from  fair,  impartial,
           independent or prompt.”




      54.   In coming to the aforesaid conclusion,  the  High  Court  has
      relied on the following factors:-
            a) Prima facie, the deceased son of respondent No.6  was  an
               RTI activist and sole appellant in the PIL, being SCA No.
               7690 of 2010, wherein two persons were,  recently  before
               the murder, joined as respondents  and  one  of  them  is
               already accused of the offence under Sections 302 and 120-
               B of IPC.  The  High  Court  also  recorded  that  it  is
               nobody’s case that the deceased victim of the offence was
               a blackmailer  or  a  busybody.   He  was  interested  in
               spreading public awareness about environmental issues and
               taking  legal  remedies  for   preventing   environmental
               degradation, particularly  in  and  around  the  reserved
               forest and Gir Sanctuary.
            b) The High Court then notices that according  to  the  FIR,
               the deceased was killed at 20.40 hours on  20.7.2010  and
               the FIR was registered at 22.06 hours.  Although the  FIR
               itself mentioned address of the deceased and  his  mobile
               phone was also found on the spot, no effort was  made  to
               either inform any member of his family  available  nearby
               or call them to the police station before registration of
               the FIR through police personnel.  The High Court notices
               that these facts would clearly strengthen  the  suspicion
               of respondent No.6 that the relatives  and  acquaintances
               of the deceased were deliberately prevented  from  naming
               anyone even as a suspected perpetrator of  the  crime  in
               the FIR.
            c) Again the High Court, by making a reference to  the  FIR,
               has prima facie concluded that  it  seems  to  have  been
               registered under the advice and guidance  of  the  higher
               officers, who were present at the  police  station.   The
               High  Court  also   notices   from   the   affidavit   of
               Superintendent of Police, Mr. Vatsa that even during  the
               further investigation, he was  required  to  continuously
               inform and brief Mr. Mohan Jha as his supervisory officer
               and Special Police Commissioner, Crime Branch, Ahmedabad.
                The High Court, therefore, formed an  opinion  that  Mr.
               Mohan Jha continued to guide and control even the further
               investigation, which had been conducted on the directions
               of the High Court.  The High Court also notices that  Mr.
               Kundaliya who was in charge  of  the  investigation,  had
               recorded statements of father, wife, brothers, mother and
               friends of the deceased. These persons had given specific
               names of the suspects, but no arrests were made.  In fact
               the  investigation  did  not  appear  to  have  made  any
               progress.  It was only after the order was passed by  the
               High Court in a Public Interest Litigation on 02.08.2010,
               transferring the investigation that arrests began  to  be
               made. The High Court then  recorded  “However,  although,
               name of Mr.DB was mentioned as the  main  suspect  in  at
               least  8  statements  recorded  till  then  and   threats
               received by the deceased  were  also  mentioned,  he  was
               neither approached for interrogation nor any  notice  was
               issued under Section 160 of  Cr.P.C.”.   The  High  Court
               then notices that efforts were made by the  persons,  who
               were  arrested,  to  make  statements  to   absolve   the
               appellant of being involved in  the  conspiracy  to  kill
               Jethwa.  From this, the High Court  concluded  “thus  the
               progress of  investigation  clearly  indicated  that  the
               investigators were relying more on the statements of  the
               arrested person than the statements recorded  earlier  of
               the relatives and acquaintances of  the  deceased.   Even
               while filing the charge-sheet, statements dated 22.7.2010
               and 28.7.2010 of  independent  and  important  witnesses,
               such as,  learned  advocate  Mr.  Anand  Yagnik  and  Mr.
               Kanaksinh Parmar respectively were not annexed  with  the
               charge-sheet”.  The High Court then notices the  contents
               of case diary in which it is recorded that on 20.08.2010,
               the news about  the  police  being  in  search  of  Shiva
               Solanki were leaked in advance and spread  through  media
               and telecast, even then he could not be located in  spite
               of enquiring into various secret sources and informants.
            d) The High Court also notices that on 16.8.2010,  when  the
               High Court ordered the transfer of the investigation, one
               of the main accused persons namely Bahadursinh D. Vadher,
               was arrested and had practically dictated in great detail
               his motive, plan, execution and sufficiency of  resources
               for arranging the elimination  of  Jethwa,  without  ever
               mentioning the name of  Shiva  Solanki.   His  statements
               were recorded everyday from 18th to  30th  August,  2010.
               During the course of  custodial  interrogation,  on  19th
               August, 2010, he added that he  had  decided  with  Shiva
               Solanki to kill  Amit  Jethwa  for  which  Shiva  was  to
               provide the money.  Thereafter, the High  Court  makes  a
               very important observation which is as follows:-
                       “Although nothing can be treated  or  held  to  be
                       proved at this stage, the sequence of  events  and
                       the statements clearly  indicated  that  even  the
                       name of Shiva Solanki was being  introduced  in  a
                       careful  and  planned  manner  with   leakage   of
                       sensitive information  for  the  public  including
                       others involved in the offence”.


                 This observation clearly shows that all the observations
                 were tentative, prima facie, to adjudge only the issues,
                 as to whether the State Police had conducted a fair  and
                 unbiased investigation. No  opinion  is  recorded,  even
                 prima facie of the guilt or otherwise of  the  appellant
                 in the  offence  of  conspiracy  to  murder  Jethwa.  It
                 appears to us that the  apprehension  of  the  appellant
                 that any of the observations  made  by  the  High  Court
                 would influence the trial are without any basis.
            e) The High Court further notices that  when  Shiva  Solanki
               was  arrested  on  07.09.2010,  his  statements  with   a
               matching version were recorded everyday  from  07.09.2010
               to  20.09.2010  with  details   of   his   decision   and
               understanding with Bahadursinh to kill Amit Jethwa of his
               own motive and resources.  But not   once  these  accused
               persons appeared to have been  asked  even  one  question
               about the involvement of the appellant.  In fact Shiva is
               stated to have clarified that, no one else  was  informed
               about his understanding with Bahadursinh.
            f)  The  High  Court  further  notices  that  statement   of
               appellant was recorded on 16.9.2010 when he  claimed  not
               only complete innocence  but  ignorance  about  even  the
               activities of the deceased and the difficulties caused by
               him.  In fact he urged for independent and  deeper  probe
               of the offence.
            g) The High Court then records the conclusion that this line
               of interrogation substantiates the  submission  that  the
               investigating agency was following the clues  offered  by
               the arrested persons rather than  the  other  independent
               information given by the father  and  witnesses.   Taking
               into consideration all  the  aforesaid  facts,  the  High
               Court concluded that “the statements  of  Mr.DB  recorded
               after  apparently  solving  the  mystery  of  the  murder
               clearly  appeared  to  be  an  empty  formality  at   the
               convenience and invitation of Mr.DB. A fair,  proper  and
               prompt investigation in case  of  such  a  crime,  by  an
               ordinary police officer, would  have  inspired  immediate
               custodial interrogation of the prime suspects; but in the
               facts of the  present  case,  the  investigating  officer
               practically remained clueless for first 25 days after the
               murder and then suddenly, with  first  arrest  and  first
               statement  of  the  arrestee  on   the   first   day   of
               investigation, the case  was  practically  solved”.  Here
               again, the conclusion of the High Court is in the context
               of the impartiality of the investigation. The same cannot
               be construed as  any  definite  or  even  a  prima  facie
               conclusion as to the guilt of the appellant.
            h) The High Court thereafter notices that the  first  person
               arrested was not named by any witnesses in any  statement
               recorded till his arrest.   The  High  Court,  therefore,
               states that it is not clear “How that first arrestee, not
               named till then  by  any  witness  or  in  any  statement
               recorded till his arrest, was identified as a suspect and
               arrested on 16.8.2010 itself after the order to  transfer
               the   investigation,  is  not   clear.   By   a   curious
               coincidence, the complainant who dictated the  FIR  under
               supervision of so-many  higher  officers  and  the  first
               arrestee   who   offered   complete   solution   to   the
               investigating agency in  his  first  statement  before  a
               special branch of the police, both happened to be serving
               police personnel serving under the higher officers  under
               whom the investigation could otherwise  hardly  make  any
               headway for 25 days.” The High  Court  then  notices  the
               following facts “At both important points of  registering
               and cracking the case, the common  factor  also  was  the
               same higher officer Mr. Mohan Jha, then in-charge of  the
               City  Crime  Branch.  He  also  supervised  the   further
               investigation as Special Commissioner  of  Police,  Crime
               Branch, by virtue of  a  special  order  issued  in  this
               regard by the Director General of Police”.
            i) On the basis  of  the  numerous  facts  narrated  in  the
               judgment,  the  High  Court  concluded  that  “there  was
               sufficient material to substantiate the  submission  that
               the State police was controlling the investigation rather
               than carrying it out in  a  fair,  impartial  and  prompt
               manner.”   The  High  Court  also  concluded   that   the
               aforesaid facts would “lend credence  to  the  allegation
               that the accused persons and the prime suspect  had  such
               influence in the higher echelons  of  police-power,  that
               the officers  of  the  lower  ranks  would  not  dare  to
               displease them.” These observations again are general and
               were clearly  necessary  to  state  and  to  support  the
               conclusion  reached  by   the   High   Court   that   the
               investigation  conducted  by   the   State   police   was
               unsatisfactory and biased. Again  no  further  conclusion
               has been recorded about the guilt of any of the suspects,
               let alone the appellant, in particular.
            j) The High Court thereafter notices the relationship of the
               appellant with Shiva Solanki and observed “The  averments
               made   by   Mr.R.Vatsa,   who   conducted   the   further
               investigation, as related  in  Para  6  herein,  did  not
               inspire confidence insofar as close  proximity  of  Shiva
               Solanki and Mr.DB and their interaction inter  se  before
               and after the crime, even to the extent discovered during
               the investigation, would have led an honest investigation
               to conclusions and inferences  quite  contrary  to  those
               drawn by the officer.   He only made a  weak  attempt  in
               proving  his  sincerity   by   applying   for   custodial
               interrogation of some of the accused and that attempt was
               simply  smothered  by  the  opinion   of   the   District
               Government Pleader, as aforesaid.”
            k) The High  Court  further  concludes  that  where  no  one
               appears to be an eye witness to firing on  the  deceased,
               not only  the  persons  alleged  to  have  assaulted  the
               deceased, but identity of  the  persons  who  would  have
               strong motive for eliminating the deceased ought to  have
               been  fully  or  properly  investigated.   Instead,   the
               prosecution  relied  mainly  on  the  persons,  who  were
               already arrested and practically stopped at them in spite
               of the order for carrying out  further  investigation  in
               light of  the  averments  and  allegations  made  in  the
               petition.
            l) In our opinion, the High Court has only noticed the facts
               which tend to show that the investigation  had  not  been
               conducted  impartially   and   fairly.    Although,   the
               appellant is mentioned  on  a  number  of  occasions,  no
               specific conclusion is reached  that  the  appellant  was
               responsible   for   influencing   or   controlling    the
               investigation.  In  fact,  the  finger  is  pointed  only
               towards the higher echelons of the police,  who  seem  to
               have been under the influence  of  the  accused  persons.
               Mention of the appellant as the prime suspect  is  not  a
               conclusion reached by the High Court.  Appellant has been
               referred to as the prime suspect in all  the  allegations
               made in the writ petitions  and  the  statements  of  the
               relatives including the statement of the  father  of  the
               deceased.  Therefore, in our opinion,  by  recording  the
               gist of the allegations made,  the  High  Court  has  not
               committed any error of jurisdiction.
            m) Mr. Rohtagi has pointed out that the High Court has  also
               recorded that since the appellant  and  his  nephew  were
               living together in a joint family  and,  therefore,  must
               have conspired to kill Jethwa.  The statement recorded by
               the High Court is as under:
                       “It has come on record that Mr.Shiva  Solanki  and
                       Mr.DB were living together in a joint  family  and
                       no investigator could have been  easily  satisfied
                       with the statements that they did not interact  in
                       respect of the  conspiracy  to  commit  a  capital
                       crime,  particularly  when  both  of   them   were
                       simultaneously joined as respondents in the PIL.”
           This, in our opinion, is not a conclusion that the  appellant
      and his nephew Shiva Solanki must have conspired.   The  submission
      made by Mr. Rohtagi is not borne out from the  observations  quoted
      above.  Similarly, the conclusion recorded by the High  Court  that
      “The incorrect statements made  by  Superintendent  of  Police  Mr.
      Vatsa regarding past record of Mr.DB as seen and discussed  earlier
      in Para 3 herein, clearly indicated an attempt at somehow shielding
      the person who was the prime suspect, according to  the  statements
      of the relatives  and  associates  of  the  deceased”   again  only
      alludes to the statements of the relatives and witnesses. It cannot
      be said to be a conclusion reached by the  High  Court,  about  the
      guilt of the appellant.  Therefore, the conclusion cannot  be  said
      to be unwarranted.
      55.  Ultimately, the High Court records the following conclusion:
              “All the above circumstances put together indicated that  the
              investigation was controlled from the  stage  of  registering
              the FIR and only the clues provided by  the  accused  persons
              themselves were investigated to close  the  investigation  by
              filing charge-sheet  No.158  of  2010  dated  10.11.2010  and
              further investigation had not served any purpose.  Therefore,
              the investigation with the lapses and  lacunae  as  also  the
              unusual acts of omission and commission did not and could not
              inspire confidence. It may not be  proper  and  advisable  to
              further critically examine the charge sheet already submitted
              by the police, as some of the  accused  persons  are  already
              arrested and shown as accused persons and even chare  is  yet
              to be framed against them. The facts and averments  discussed
              in paragraph 6 and  7  hereinabove  also  amply  support  the
              conclusion that the investigation all throughout was far from
              fair, impartial independent or prompt.”

      56.   This conclusion also only records the reasons which  persuaded
      the High Court to transfer the investigation to CBI. No  categorical
      findings are recorded about the involvement of the appellant in  the
      crime of conspiracy. In fact, the High Court is well aware that  the
      observations have been made only for the limited purpose of reaching
      an appropriate conclusion as to whether the investigation  had  been
      conducted impartially.  The  High  Court  has  itself  clarified  as
      follows :
           “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 refrains  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.”


      57.   After recording the aforesaid clarification,  it  was  noticed
      that the investigation  is  being  transferred  to  CBI  to  instill
      confidence of the general public in the  investigation,  keeping  in
      mind the seriousness of the case having far reaching implications.
      58.   Although we have not  expunged  any  of  the  adverse  remarks
      recorded by the High Court, we emphasize that the trial court should
      keep in mind that any observations made by the High Court, which may
      appear to be adverse to the Appellant, were  confined  only  to  the
      determination of the issue as to whether the investigation is to  be
      transferred to CBI. Undoubtedly, the trial of the  accused  will  be
      conducted unaffected and  uninfluenced  by  any  of  the  so  called
      adverse remarks of the High Court.
      59.   For the reasons stated above, we see  no  merit  in  both  the
      appeals and the same are hereby dismissed.


      Crl. M.P. No. 23723 of 2013 :-
      60.   We have already noticed the submissions of the learned counsel
      for the parties on  this  application,  seeking  bail  in  the  main
      judgment. The petitioner-appellant was  arrested  on  5th  November,
      2013, when he appeared before the CBI in response  to  the  summons.
      Since  then  the  petitioner-appellant  has  been  in  custody.  The
      supplementary charge-sheet has been filed by the CBI in the Court of
      ACJM, Ahmedabad in  January,  2014.  After  the  charge-sheet  being
      filed, obviously, the petitioner-appellant is no longer required for
      further investigation. Mr. Rohatgi  has  rightly  pointed  out  that
      there is no likelihood of the  petitioner-appellant  tampering  with
      the evidence as the copies of all the sensitive statements have  not
      been supplied to the petitioner-appellant.

      61.   We are not much impressed by the submission of    Mr.  Rohatgi
      that the petitioner-appellant ought to be released  on  bail  simply
      because he happens to be a sitting M.P., nor are we  much  impressed
      by the fact that further incarceration of  the  petitioner-appellant
      would  prevent  him  from  performing  his  duties  either  in   the
      Parliament or in his constituency. So far as the court is concerned,
      the petitioner-appellant is a  suspect/accused  in  the  offence  of
      murder. No  special  treatment  can  be  given  to  the  petitioner-
      appellant simply on the ground  that  he  is  a  sitting  Member  of
      Parliament. However, keeping in view  the  fact  that  the  CBI  has
      submitted the supplementary  charge-sheet  and  that  the  trial  is
      likely to take a long time, we deem it appropriate  to  enlarge  the
      petitioner-appellant on bail, subject to the following conditions:
      (i) On his furnishing personal security in the sum of      Rs.5 lacs
      with  two  solvent  sureties,  each  of  the  like  amount,  to  the
      satisfaction of the trial court.
      (ii) The petitioner-appellant shall appear  in  Court  as  and  when
      directed by the court.
      (iii) The petitioner-appellant shall make himself available for  any
      further investigation/interrogation by the CBI as and when required.


      (iv) The petitioner-appellant shall not directly or indirectly  make
      any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with  the
      facts of the case so as to dissuade that person from disclosing such
      facts to the court or to the investigating agency or to  any  police
      officer.
      (v) The petitioner-appellant  shall  not  leave  India  without  the
      previous permission of the trial court.
      (vi)  In  case  the  petitioner-appellant  is  in  possession  of  a
      passport, the same shall be deposited with the  trial  court  before
      being released on bail.


      62.   The trial court shall be at liberty to add/impose any  further
      condition(s) as it deems necessary, in addition to the aforesaid.


      63. The Criminal Misc. Petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.


      Crl.M.P.No.22987 of 2013 :
      64.   This Crl. Misc.  Petition  was  filed  by  the  petitioner  on
                      28th October, 2013, seeking  stay  of  any  coercive
      action against  him  prejudicing  his  life  and  personal  liberty,
      pursuant to the judgment dated 25th September, 2012 of  the  Gujarat
      High Court impugned in the present criminal appeals. In view of  the
      order passed by us in Crl. Misc. Petition  No.23723  of  2013,  this
      Petition is dismissed as having become infructuous.




                                        ……………………………….J.
                                        [Surinder Singh Nijjar]








                                        ………………………………..J.
                                        [A.K.Sikri]


      New Delhi;
      February 25, 2014.
-----------------------
[1]    (2008) 3 SCC 542
[2]    (2009) 10 SCC 488
[3]    2012 Criminal Law Journal 1001
[4]    (2012) 8 SCC 106
[5]    (1993) Supp.4 SCC 260
[6]    (1996) 11 SCC 253
[7]    (1999) 5 SCC 740
[8]    (2009) 6 SCC 65
[9]   1994 Supp (1) SCC 145
[10]   (2009) 5 SCC 313

-----------------------
63