1

        REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1448 OF 2017  

(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 3716 OF 2017)  

Lt. Col. Prasad Shrikant Purohit  .... Appellant(s)

Versus

State of Maharashtra               .... Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

R.K. Agrawal, J.

1)  Leave granted.

2)  This  appeal  is  directed  against  the  judgment  and  order

dated 25.04.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at

Bombay  in  Criminal  Appeal  No.  664  of  2016  whereby  the

Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court  dismissed  the  bail

application filed by the appellant herein.   

3) Brief facts:

(a)   On 29.09.2008, at around 9:35 p.m., a bomb explosion

took place at Malegaon, District Nasik, opposite Shakil Goods

2

Transport  Company  between  Anjuman  Chowk  and  Bhiku

Chowk.  The said blast was caused by explosive device fitted in

LML  Freedom  Motor  Cycle  bearing  Registration  No.

MH-15-P-4572. As a result of the said explosion, six persons

were killed and about  100 persons had received injuries  of

various nature.  Damage to the property was also caused.

(b) The  offence  came  to  be  registered  under  CR  No.

130/2008  in  Azad  Nagar  Police  Station,  Malegaon  under

Sections 302, 307,  326, 324,  427, 153-A and 120-B of  the

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘the IPC’) read with Sections

3,  4,  5  and  6  of  the  Explosive  Substances  Act  read  with

Sections 3, 5 and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.

(c)  During the course of investigation, the samples collected

from the place of  offence were sent  to the Forensic Science

Laboratory at Nasik and the same were found to be containing

Cyclonite (RDX) and Ammonium Nitrate.  On 18.10.2008, the

provisions  of  Sections  15,  16,  17,  18,  20  and  23  of  the

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (Amended) 2004, (in

short ‘the UAP Act’) were invoked and the case was entrusted

to Deputy Superintendent of  Police,  (HQ),  Nasik Rural.   On

3

26.10.2008,  the  Anti-Terrorist  Squad  (ATS),  Mumbai  took

charge of the investigation and on 29.11.2008, the provisions

of Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (in short

‘the MCOC Act) were added.

(d)   During investigation, it  was found that the appellant

herein, along with other co-accused in the case, entered into a

criminal conspiracy between January, 2008 to October, 2008

with a  common object  and intention to  strike  terror  in  the

minds  of  people  caused  bomb  blast  at  Malegaon  by  using

explosive substances to cause damage to life and property and

to  create  communal  rift.   According  to  ATS,  the  appellant

herein  had  brought  RDX  with  him  from  Kashmir  for  the

purpose of Bomb Blast at Malegaon.

(e) During investigation, it has been further revealed by the

ATS that the appellant herein was a serving Army Officer and

was  associated  with  Military  Intelligence  and  Interior

Terrorism (Insurgency Activities).  The appellant herein floated

‘Abhinav Bharat’ organization in the year 2007 inspite of being

serving as a Commissioned Officer in Armed Forces.  The other

co-accused  in  the  case  were  also  the  members  of  the  said

4

organization.  The object of the Organization was to turn India

into a Hindu Rashtra called as ‘Aryavrat’.  They had planned

to train persons for guerrilla war and had also decided to kill

the  persons  opposing  their  object  of  formation  of  a  Hindu

Rashtra.  As per the investigation, it has also come out that

the appellant herein along with other persons had participated

in various meetings of the said Organization to discuss various

aspects for achieving their goals.  Further, it is the case of the

ATS  that  the  organization,  viz.,  ‘Abhinav  Bharat’  is  an

Organized  Crime  Syndicate  and  its  members  including  the

appellant  herein  were  active  since  2003.   In  one  of  the

meetings  at  Bhopal,  on  11/12  April,  2008,  the  criminal

conspiracy to cause bomb blast at Malegaon was hatched.  In

the said meeting, the appellant herein took the responsibility

of providing explosives for the common object in order to take

revenge of ‘Jihadi’ activities by Muslim community.  

(f) After completion of the investigation, on 20.01.2009, the

ATS,  Mumbai,  filed  charge  sheet  under  Sections  302,  307,

326, 324, 427, 153A read with Section 120B of the IPC and

Sections 3, 5 and 25 of the Arms Act and Sections 15, 16, 17,

5

18, 20 and 23 of the UAP Act,  Sections 3(1)(i),  3(1)(ii),  3(2),

3(3),  3(5)  of  the  MCOC Act,  Sections  3,  4,  5  and  6  of  the

Explosive Substances Act.   

(g) The  appellant  came  to  be  arrested  on  05.11.2008  in

connection to the said offence.   The appellant herein preferred

a  Bail  Application  being  No.  42  of  2008 before  the  Special

Judge under  MCOCA for  Greater  Mumbai.   By order  dated

31.07.2009, the Special Judge discharged the appellant and

other  co-accused  from  the  offences  under  MCOC  Act  and

directed to transfer the case to the regular court at Nasik.  The

State  Government,  being  aggrieved  by  the  order  dated

31.07.2009, filed an appeal being 866 of 2009 before the High

Court.  A Division Bench of the High Court, vide order dated

19.07.2010, set aside the order dated 31.07.2009 and restored

the bail application filed by the appellant herein for hearing on

merits. The appellant herein went in appeal before this Court

and filed Criminal Appeal Nos. 1969-1970 of 2010.  It would

be appropriate to mention here that after filing of the charge

sheet  by  ATS,  Mumbai,  the  investigation  of  the  same  was

started by the National Investigation Agency, (NIA), New Delhi

6

as per the order of the Government of India dated 01.04.2011

and on 13.04.2011, the NIA re-registered the offence in respect

of the said incident as CR No. 5/11.      

(h) This Court,  in  Prasad Shrikant Purohit vs.  State of

Maharashtra and Another (2015) 7 SCC 440,  dismissed the

criminal appeals filed by the appellant herein while restoring

the Bail Application No. 42 of 2008 to the file of the Special

Judge  for  passing  orders  on  merits.   On  the  question  of

applicability  of  the  MCOC Act,  this  Court  has  observed  as

under:-  

“95. In the light  of  our above conclusions on the various submissions,  we  are  convinced  that  in  respect  of  the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 1971 of 2010, namely, A-7, there  is  no  scope even for  the  limited purpose  of  Section 21(4)(b) to hold that application of MCOCA is doubtful. We have held that the said appellant A-7 had every nexus with all the three crimes, namely, Parbhani, Jalna and Malegaon and,  therefore,  the bar for  grant of  bail  under  Section 21 would clearly operate against him and there is no scope for granting any bail. Insofar as the rest of the appellants are concerned,  for  the  purpose  of  invoking  Section  21(4)(b), namely, to consider their claim for bail, it can be held that for  the  present  juncture  with  the  available  materials  on record, it is not possible to show any nexus of the appellants who have been proceeded against  for  their  involvement in Malegaon blast with the two earlier cases, namely, Parbhani and  Jalna.  There  is  considerable  doubt  about  their involvement in Parbhani and Jalna and, therefore, they are entitled  for  their  bail  applications  to  be  considered  on merits.”

7

Vide order dated 12.10.2015, the Special Judge, rejected the

bail  application  of  the  appellant  herein.   Aggrieved  by  the

decision dated 12.10.2015,  the appellant  herein preferred a

Criminal Appeal being No. 138 of 2016 before the High Court.

During the pendency of the aforesaid appeal before the High

Court,  the  NIA  submitted  supplementary  charge  sheet

dropping the charges under MCOCA against all the accused

persons  including  the  appellant  herein.   In  view  of  the

supplementary  charge  sheet  by  the  NIA,  the  High  Court

permitted the appellant herein to file fresh bail application.   

(i) The appellant herein filed a fresh bail application before

the Court of Special Judge under MCOC Act, 1999 and NIA

Act, 2008 for Greater Mumbai.  The Special Judge, vide order

dated  26.09.2016,  denied  the  bail  to  the  appellant  herein.

Being aggrieved by the order dated 26.09.2016, the appellant

herein went in appeal before the High Court and filed Criminal

Appeal No. 664 of 2016.  The NIA resisted the bail application

of  the  appellant  herein on various grounds before  the High

Court.  On 25.04.2017, a Division Bench of the High Court,

dismissed  the  bail  application  of  the  appellant  herein.

8

Aggrieved by the order dated 25.04.2017, the appellant has

filed this appeal before this Court by way of special leave.

4) Heard Mr. Harish Salve, learned senior counsel for the

appellant herein and Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Additional

Solicitor General for the respondent-State and Mr. Amarendra

Sharan, learned senior counsel for the intervenor-Nisar Ahmed

Haji Sayed Bilal, who is the father of one of the deceased.  

Point(s) for consideration:-

5) The  only  point  for  consideration  before  this  Court  is

whether in the present facts and circumstances of the case,

the appellant has made out a case for grant of bail or not?

Rival contentions:-

6) Mr. Harish Salve, learned senior counsel for the appellant

herein  contended  before  this  Court  that  in  view  of  the

supplementary report filed by the NIA, dropping the charges in

respect of the offences under the MCOC Act, it has to be held

that there is no prima facie case against the appellant herein.

Learned senior counsel further contended that earlier, the bail

applications  were  rejected  mainly  on  the  basis  of  the

confessional  statements of  the co-accused under the MCOC

9

Act and now, as the charges under the MCOC Act have been

dropped,  the  confessional  statements  of  the  co-accused are

required  to  be  excluded  from  consideration  and  in  their

absence thereof, there is no incriminating material against the

appellant herein so as to deny him the benefit of bail.  Learned

senior counsel further contended that during investigation by

NIA, PW-79, PW-112 and PW-55 have retracted their previous

statements made before the ATS.  The fact that the material

witnesses  have  retracted  from  their  statements  while

complaining about the harassment and torture meted out by

the officers of the ATS, clearly indicate that the investigation

carried out by the ATS was not fair but it was tainted.  The

statements  and  confessions  have  been  extracted  subjecting

the witness and co-accused to the torture and duress, under

the threats of implicating them falsely.  Learned senior counsel

contended that in view of the withdrawal of those statements

and confessions, there remains nothing on record to implicate

the appellant herein with the alleged offence.  

7) Learned  senior  counsel  further  contended  that  the

appellant  was  a  Military  Intelligence  Officer  at  the  relevant

10

time  and  had  participated  in  the  meetings  held  at  various

places like Faridabad, Bhopal etc. in discharge of his duties as

such for collecting intelligence and creating new sources and

the said fact has also been revealed in the Report of Court of

Inquiry (CoI) conducted by the Army Officers against him as

well as in the reply filed by the Ministry of Defence and the

documents  filed  by  the  said  Ministry  in  the  Special  Court.

Learned senior counsel further contended that there was no

sufficient  material  to  show  that  in  the  said  meetings,  any

conspiracy  was  hatched  to  commit  the  bomb  blast  at

Malegaon.   

8) Learned  senior  counsel  vehemently  contended  the

statement  of  PW-21  that  immediately  after  the  alleged

conspiracy meeting, he found the appellant herein disclosing

the  details  of  the  said  meeting  to  his  superior  officers  in

Military  Intelligence in  order  to  suggest  that  no conspirator

will ever divulge the details of the conspiracy to the superior

officers in Military Intelligence.  Even the appellant herein also

informed  that  it  was  a  ‘covert  operation’  of  Military

Intelligence.  

11

9) Learned senior counsel further contended that the Report

of Inquiry (RoI) also reveals that the RDX was planted by the

ATS officer in the house of Sudhakarn Chaturvedi (A-11).  The

statements of PW-180 and PW-183 also indicate the same but

the courts below disbelieved the version of NIA in this regard.

10)    Further, learned senior counsel strenuously contended

that whether the amended provision of Section 43(D)(5) of the

UAP  Act  be  applied  retrospectively  to  the  appellant  herein.

The said provision had been amended on 31.12.2008 while the

incident  had  taken  place  on  29.09.2008.   He  further

contended that the High Court was not right in holding that

the  right  of  bail  of  the  accused  is  a  procedural  right  and

cannot be considered as a substantive right for retrospective

applicability of the provision.  Further, the sanction granted

for prosecution of the appellant under Section 45(1) of the UAP

Act was not valid.  He further stressed upon the point that the

High  Court  erred  in  ignoring  the  Doctrine  of  Parity  while

granting bail to Pragya Singh Thakur (A-1) wherein the court

has  taken  into  account  the  changed  circumstances  in  the

charge sheet  filed by the NIA but the very same facts have

12

been ignored  in  the  case  of  the  appellant  herein.   Learned

senior counsel finally submitted that the appellant is in jail

since last about eight years and eight months and the delay is

on account of the prolonged time taken by the investigation

agencies and the appellant herein has a good prima facie case

to succeed for grant of bail before this Court.

11) Learned  Additional  Solicitor  General  (ASG)  for  the

respondent-State strongly controverted the contentions raised

by  learned  senior  counsel  for  the  appellant  herein  by

submitting that he was the main conspirator and prima facie

there is sufficient material on record to prove his involvement

in the alleged offence.  Merely because the charges have been

dropped under the MCOC Act, it does not mean that there is

no material  against the appellant herein in respect of  other

charges.  The NIA has given clean chit to Pragya Singh Thakur

(A-1) and some other accused person but it has not exonerated

the  appellant  herein  from  the  charges  leveled  against  him

which clearly  proves  that  the NIA has also  found sufficient

material to implicate the appellant.

13

12) Learned  ASG  finally  submitted  that  the  conclusions

about  involvement  of  the  appellant  herein  in  the  offences

alleged against him as drawn by the ATS are supplemented

and  supported  by  the  NIA  officers  in  their  detailed

investigation.  Having regard to the gravity and seriousness of

the offence, which were in the nature of waging war against

the unity and integrity of the Nation, and, that too, by violent

means,  the bail  application of  the appellant could not  have

been allowed and it  has rightly been rejected by the courts

below and no interference is sought for by this Court.         

13) Mr.  Amarendra  Saran,  learned  senior  counsel  for  the

intervenor  submitted  that  there  are  sufficient  material  and

evidence  on  record  to  establish  a  prima  facie case  of  the

involvement of the appellant herein in the criminal offence and

the  report  of  the  Court  of  Inquiry  (CoI)  submitted  by  the

Military  authorities  cannot  be  taken  into  consideration  for

deciding the question of grant of bail.

Discussion:-

14) In  order  to  prove  the  prima  facie case  against  the

appellant, the prosecution has relied upon the transcription of

14

the conversations of the meetings obtained from the laptop of

Swami  Amrutanand  (A-10),  statement  of  prosecution

witnesses recorded under Sections 161 and 164(5) of the Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘the Code’), intercepted

telephonic  conversations  between  the  appellant  herein  and

co-accused persons and lastly the finding of traces of RDX in

the house of  co-accused Sudhakar Chaturvedi (A-11).   With

regard  to  the  transcription  of  the  conversations  of  the

meetings,  it  was  urged  from the  side  of  the  appellant  that

there was no such conspiracy hatched between the persons

present in the meeting to commit bomb blasts at Malegaon

and the persons present have expressed their general opinion

about the then prevailing political and social situation.  In this

backdrop, it is relevant to note that the appellant herein was a

serving  Army  Officer  and  was  associated  with  Military

Intelligence and Interior Terrorism (Insurgency Activities).  In

the statement of PW-21, it has been revealed that immediately

after the alleged conspiracy meeting, he found the appellant

herein disclosing the details of the said meeting to his superior

officers in Military Intelligence.  Even the appellant herein also

15

informed that it was a ‘covert operation’ of Military Intelligence

and  he  attended  the  said  meetings  to  create  the  counter

intelligence and no conspirator will ever divulge the details of

the conspiracy to the superior officers in Military Intelligence.

Besides this, the documents filed by the Ministry of Defence

and the papers of the Court of Inquiry also substantiate the

claim of the appellant herein.  Similarly, intercepted telephonic

conversations  between  the  co-accused  and  the  appellant

herein were supported as part of duty.

15) The NIA started the investigation on the basis of the facts

stated  in  the  FIR  and  the  evidence  collected  by  the  ATS,

Mumbai.  During investigation, it was found that there were

contradictions with regard to the evidence led in the charge

sheet by the ATS. On the basis of the specific points covered

during  the  investigation  conducted  by  the  NIA,  it  was

concluded that no offence under the MCOC Act was attracted

and the confessional statements recorded under the provisions

of the said Act by ATS Mumbai were not being relied upon by

the NIA in the charge sheet against the accused persons.  In

fact,  on  evaluation  of  the  evidence  against  Pragya  Singh

16

Thakur (A-1), the evidence on record were not found sufficient

by the NIA to prosecute her as all the witnesses had retracted

from their statements and thus no case was made out against

her.

16) As regards the other parameters to be considered while

deciding the application of bail, like, reasonable apprehension

of the witnesses being tampered with and danger, of-course, of

justice being thwarted by grant of bail, needless to state that

already some of the witnesses have retracted their statements

made before the ATS.  A perusal of the statements of various

prosecution witness recorded under Section 164 of the Code

by the NIA, it was revealed that the ATS, Mumbai forced them

to  make  the  statements  under  the  aforesaid  Section  by

threatening them to  falsely  implicate  them in the case.   In

other  words,  witnesses  retracted  from  their  statements

recorded  by  the  ATS,  Mumbai  at  Mumbai.     Even  during

re-examination of PW-79 recorded under Section 164 of the

Code,  he  deposed  that  he  did  not  attend  any  meeting  of

‘Abhinav  Bharat’  held  at  Bhopal  and  he  had  never  visited

Bhopal  until  ATS  took  him to  Ram Mandir,  Bhopal  in  the

17

month of  May,  2009.   The very  same statement  was again

recorded at Delhi by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, where

he confirmed the same.   

17) In view of the above, it would be relevant to quote the

retracted statement of PW-55, mentioned in the charge sheet

filed by the NIA, wherein he stated that he did not retract in

front of the Magistrate while his statement was being recorded

under Section 164 of the Code due to threat and pressure of

the  ATS.   However,  he  sent  one  complaint  to  Maharashtra

State  Human  Rights  Commission,  Mumbai  on  05.10.2009

stating that he was forced to give the confessional statement

as dictated to him by the ATS Mumbai that too before transfer

of the investigation of the case to the NIA.  He further alleged

that the following lies were dictated to him to depose before

the Magistrate by the ATS which he also incorporated in the

complaint sent to State Human Rights Commission which are

as under:-

(1) That Lt. Col. Prasad Purohit gave him 3 weapons

and  ammunition  to  be  kept  in  his  house  for  a

18

month sometime in 2006.  The description of  the

weapons was also dictated to him.

(2) That he saw RDX in the house of Lt. Col. Prasad

Purohit in a green sack at Devlali.

(3)  That  Lt.  Col.  Purohit  confessed  to  him  about

having supplied RDX for Samjhauta Express Blast.

(4) That Lt. Col. Purohit told him in the early 2008

that something was planned to be done soon.  He

further  told  him  that  an  action  was  planned  in

Nashik District in Oct/Nov. 2008.

(5) That he was asked to say that Lt. Col. Purohit

had confessed to him about planning and executing

the Malegaon blast along with his accomplices.

18) Apart  from the  above,  during  the  investigation  by  the

NIA, it was revealed that the Army authorities had conducted

a Court of Inquiry (CoI) against the appellant herein.  During

scrutiny  of  the  proceedings  of  the  CoI,  a  different  story  of

assembling of IED in the House of Sudhakar Chaturvedi (A-11)

came to light.  During re-examination of the witnesses by the

NIA  who  deposed  before  the  Court  of  Inquiry  (CoI),  it  was

19

revealed that they suspiciously found API Bagde of ATS in the

house of A-11 when A-11 was not present in the house.  On

considering the facts narrated by the witnesses, the question

arises here as to why API Bagde visited the house of A-11 in

his absence.  It is also pertinent to mention her that the ATS

conducted  the  search  of  the  house  of  A-11  on  25.11.2008

wherefrom they had taken the swab of RDX which creates a

doubt on the recovery of RDX keeping in view the examination

of the witnesses.  Even in the charge sheet filed by the ATS, it

has been very specifically mentioned that the recovery itself

becomes suspect on the ground that  the ATS Mumbai may

have planted the RDX traces to implicate him and the other

accused persons in the case.       

19)  Further, with regard to the contention of learned senior

counsel as to the non-applicability of Section 43-D(5) of the

UAP Act or want of valid sanction for the prosecution, it was

rightly suggested by the learned ASG that it can be considered

at the time of trial and not at this stage.

20

Conclusion:-

20) In  our  considered  opinion,  there  are  material

contradictions in the charge sheets filed by the ATS Mumbai

and the NIA which are required to be tested at the time of trial

and this  Court  cannot  pick or  choose  one version over  the

other. Liberty of a citizen is undoubtedly important but this is

to balance with the security of the community. A balance is

required to be maintained between the personal liberty of the

accused and the investigational rights of the agency. It must

result in minimum interference with the personal liberty of the

accused and the right of the agency to investigate the case.  

21) The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well

settled. The court granting bail should exercise its discretion

in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though

at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence

and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not

be  undertaken,  there  is  a  need  to  indicate  in  such  orders

reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted

particularly where the accused is charged of having committed

a  serious  offence.  Any  order  devoid  of  such  reasons  would

21

suffer from non-application of mind. It is also necessary for

the  court  granting  bail  to  consider,  among  other

circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail;

they are:

(a)  The  nature  of  accusation  and  the  severity  of

punishment  in  case  of  conviction  and  the  nature  of

supporting evidence.

(b)  Reasonable  apprehension  of  tampering  with  the

witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant.

(c)  Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the

charge.  

22) Before concluding, we must note that though an accused

has a right to make successive applications for grant of bail,

the court entertaining such subsequent bail applications has a

duty to consider the reasons and grounds on which the earlier

bail applications were rejected. In such cases, the court also

has a duty to record the fresh grounds which persuade it to

take  a  view  different  from  the  one  taken  in  the  earlier

applications.

22

23) At the stage of granting bail,  a detailed examination of

evidence  and  elaborate  documentation  of  the  merits  of  the

case has not to be undertaken. The grant or refusal to grant

bail lies within the discretion of the court. The grant or denial

is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances

of each particular case. But at the same time, right to bail is

not  to  be  denied  merely  because  of  the  sentiments  of  the

community against the accused.  

24) In  view  of  the  foregoing  discussion,  we  are  of  the

considered  opinion  that  there  are  variations  in  the  charge

sheets filed by ATS Mumbai and NIA.  Further, the appellant

herein, who was at the relevant time was an Intelligence officer

of the Indian Army has refuted the claim of conspiracy on the

ground  of  Intelligence  inputs  which  he  informed  to  his

superior officers as well and the alleged role of ATS officials in

the planting of RDX at the residence of A-11 clearly indicate

the fresh grounds which persuade the appellant herein to take

a view different from the one taken in the earlier applications.

As mentioned earlier, at the stage of granting bail, a detailed

examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the

23

merit of the case need not be undertaken.  However, keeping

in view the fact that  NIA has submitted the supplementary

charge-sheet which is at variance with the charge-sheet filed

by the ATS and that the trial is likely to take a long time and

the  appellant  has  been  in  prison  for  about  8  years  and  8

months, we are of the considered view that the appellant has

made out a prima facie case for release on bail and we deem it

appropriate to enlarge the appellant herein on bail, subject to

the following conditions:

(i) On his furnishing personal security in the sum of Rs 1

(one)  lakh  with  two  solvent  sureties,  each  of  the  like

amount, to the satisfaction of the trial court.

(ii)  The  appellant  herein  shall  appear  in  court  as  and

when directed by the court.

(iii) The appellant herein shall make himself available for

any  further  investigation/interrogation  by  NIA  as  and

when required.

(iv)  The appellant herein shall  not directly or indirectly

make any inducement, threat or promise to any person

24

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 appellant herein shall not leave India without the

previous permission of the trial court.

(vi)  In  case  the  appellant  herein  is  in  possession  of  a

passport, the same shall be deposited with the trial court

before being released on bail.

(vii)  We reserve  liberty  to  the  respondents  to  make an

appropriate  application  for  modification/recalling  the

order  passed  by  us,  if  for  any  reason,  the  appellant

herein  violates  any  of  the  conditions  imposed  by  this

Court.

25) It  is  further  made  clear  that  the  grant  of  bail  to  the

appellant herein shall be no consideration for grant of bail to

other accused persons in the case and the prayer for bail by

other accused persons (not before us) shall be considered on

its own merits.  We also make it clear that the Special Court

shall decide the bail applications, if filed by the other accused

25

persons, uninfluenced by any observation made by this Court.

Further, any observations made by us in this order shall not

come in the way of deciding the trial on merits.

26) In view of the above, we set aside the judgment passed by

the  High  Court  dated  25.04.2017  and  grant  bail  to  the

appellant  herein  on  the  conditions  mentioned  above.

Intervention Application is allowed.  The appeal is allowed.

...…………….………………………J.                (R.K. AGRAWAL)                                  

.…....…………………………………J.         (ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE)         

NEW DELHI; AUGUST 21, 2017.