Page 1

REPORTABLE     

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  698         OF 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 10337 of 2013)

Sanghian Pandian Rajkumar               .... Appellant(s)

Versus

Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.           ....  Respondent(s)

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 699          OF 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 10600 of 2013)

Balkrishan Rajendraprasad Chaubey              .... Appellant(s)

Versus

Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.           ....  Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

P.Sathasivam, CJI.

1) Leave granted in both the appeals.

1

Page 2

2) These appeals  are  directed  against  the  orders  dated  

20.11.2013  and  10.07.2013  passed  by  the  High  Court  of  

Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Bail Application Nos. 2002  

and  1713  of  2012  respectively,  whereby  the  High  Court  

dismissed  the  bail  applications  of  both  the  appellants  

pending trial.

3) The appellant -  Sanghian Pandian Rajkumar (Accused  

No.  2),  an  IPS  Officer,  is  one  of  the  accused  persons  in  

Special  Case No.  5  of  2010  (RC BS1/S/2010/0004-Mumbai  

dated 01.02.2010), who was charge-sheeted,  inter alia, for  

the  offences  punishable  under  Section  120B  read  with  

Sections 302, 364, 365, 368, 193, 197, 342, 420, 384, 201  

and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘the IPC’) and  

Sections 25(1B)(a) and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and he was  

arrested on 24.04.2007 and since then is in custody.

4) The  other  appellant  -  Balkrishan  Rajendraprasad  

Chaubey  (Accused  No.  6),  who  was  working  as  a  sub-

Inspector  of  Police  in  the  Anti  Terrorist  Squad  (ATS),  

Ahmedabad, at the relevant time, is also one of the accused  

2

Page 3

persons  in  the  same  case  arising  out  of  R.C.  No.  

BS1/S/2010/0004 dated 01.02.2010 registered with the CBI  

SCB,  Mumbai  and  was  charge-sheeted  for  the  offences  

punishable under Section 120B read with Sections 365, 368,  

302 and 201 of the IPC and he was arrested on 01.07.2007  

and since then is in custody.

5) Inasmuch as we are concerned only with the grant of  

bail pending trial, there is no need to analyse all the factual  

details  except  their  involvement  in  the  commission  of  

offence,  as  alleged  by  the  prosecution.   In  the  cases  on  

hand,  as  per  the  prosecution  story,  three  murders  were  

allegedly committed  inter alia by senior police officers like  

the  appellants  -  Sanghian  Pandian  Rajkumar  (A-2)  and  

Balkrishan Rajendraprasad Chaubey (A-6), whose duty was  

otherwise  to  maintain  law  and  order  and  to  prevent  the  

commission of offence.   

6) Heard Mr. U.U. Lalit, learned senior counsel, Mr. Sushil  

Karanjkar, learned counsel for the appellants (A-2 and A-6)  

3

Page 4

respectively  and  Ms.  Indira  Jaising,  learned  Additional  

Solicitor General for the respondent-CBI.    

Submissions:

7) Mr. U.U. Lalit, learned senior counsel for the appellant,  

by  taking  us  through  the  allegations  against  A-2  in  the  

charge-sheet filed in the Special Court, submitted that there  

is no direct evidence linking the present appellant with the  

commission of offence as alleged by the prosecution and the  

investigation  carried  out  by  the  CBI  suffers  from  serious  

infirmities.  He further pointed out that the materials shown  

to support the prosecution charges against the appellant (A-

2)  are  characterized  with  various  defects  such  as  lack  of  

spontaneity,  invaryness,  untrustworthiness,  hear-say  

witnesses,  inherently  impossible  or  improbable  facts  and  

humanly abnormal conducts apart from the infirmities in the  

charges which are yet to be framed by the Court.  He further  

pointed out that A-2 is  in judicial  custody without trial  for  

4

Page 5

almost seven years and continued incarceration will amount  

to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.   He also  

pointed out that inasmuch as either the High Court or this  

Court  granted  bail  to  similarly  placed  co-accused,  the  

present appellant  is  also to  be released on the ground of  

parity.   Finally,  he  stressed  on  the  fact  that  there  are  

hundreds  of  witnesses  to  be  examined  and  voluminous  

documents  exhibited in  the charge-sheet,  it  would  not  be  

possible to complete the trial in the near future.

8) Though Mr.  Sushil  Karanjkar,  learned counsel  for  the  

appellant  -  Balkrishan  Rajendraprasad  Chaubey  (A-6)  

adopted  the  arguments  made  by  Mr.  U.U.  Lalit,  learned  

senior  counsel,  he  also  submitted  that  A-6,  being  a  sub-

Inspector, was present in the company of certain officers and  

there  is  no  allegation  against  him  having  fired  at  the  

deceased.  He also pointed out that even if the Court accepts  

the prosecution story that he was present at the place of  

firing along with the other police officers, there is no specific  

role  attributed  to  him.   In  addition  to  the  same,  he  also  

5

Page 6

pointed  out  that  the  appellant  (A-6)  is  in  judicial  custody  

without trial for almost seven years.    

9) On the other hand, Ms. Indira Jaising, learned Additional  

Solicitor General, by taking us through the relevant materials  

referred to in the charge-sheet and presented in the court,  

submitted that inasmuch as both the appellants were police  

officers,  there  is  every  likelihood  of  influencing  the  

witnesses.  Learned ASG also submitted that inasmuch as  

there  is  a  direct  link  in  the  abduction  and  killing  of  

Sohrabuddin,  Kausarbi  and  Tulsiram  Prajapati,  no  case  is  

made  out  for  grant  of  bail  at  this  juncture.   She  further  

submitted  that  by  transfer  of  case  records  from the  trial  

court  as  well  as  from  the  High  Court  of  Gujarat  to  the  

transferee Court at Mumbai, viz., the Special Court, CBI and  

after  translation  of  the  same,  the  trial  is  likely  to  be  

concluded within a reasonable time.  She also pointed out  

that  the  grant  of  bail/anticipatory  bail  to  certain  other  

accused is not a ground for release of these appellants at  

6

Page 7

this stage.  Accordingly, she prayed for dismissal of both the  

appeals.

10) We have considered the rival contentions and perused  

all  the  relevant  materials  including  the  charges  levelled  

against the appellants.   

Discussion:

11) Before  considering  the  claim  of  the  parties  and  

materials relied upon for and against the grant of bail, it is  

necessary to highlight the law relating to grant of bail in non-

bailable offences.  At the foremost, the court granting bail  

should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not  

as a matter of course.  Though, for grant of bail,  detailed  

examination of evidence and elaborate discussion on merits  

of  the  case  need  not  be  undertaken,  there  is  a  need  to  

indicate in  such orders reasons for  prima facie conclusion  

why bail was being granted, particularly, when the accused  

is  charged  of  having  committed  a  serious  offence.   In  

Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs.  Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu  

7

Page 8

Yadav and Another,  (2004) 7 SCC 528, this Court, while  

considering Sections 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal  

Procedure,  1973,  (in  short  ‘the Code’)  held  that,  amongst  

other  circumstances of  the case,  the following factors are  

required to be considered by the court before granting bail:

“(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.”  

12) Keeping the above principles in mind, let us discuss the  

stand of both the sides.  As observed in the earlier part of  

our judgment, considering the limited issue involved, there is  

no need to elaborately analyse, assess, the acceptability or  

otherwise  of  the  prosecution  version,  charges  levelled,  

witnesses  examined  and  documents  exhibited  at  this  

juncture.  However, in the light of the submissions made by  

both the sides, we have carefully perused the role attributed  

to these appellants in the charge sheet filed in the Court as  

8

Page 9

well  as  other  materials  and  also  taken  note  of  judicial  

custody for  nearly seven years pending trial  and the rival  

contentions.

13) Coming to the delay, it is not in dispute that in respect  

of abduction and killing of Sohrabuddin and Kausarbi, after  

prolonged hearings, the trial was transferred to Mumbai, that  

is, out of Gujarat on the orders of this Court.  Thereafter, in  

respect of killing of Tulsiram Prajapati, again, on the orders  

of this Court dated 08.04.2013, the same was transferred to  

Mumbai to be heard along with the trial relating to killing of  

Sohrabuddin  and Kausarbi.   Taking  note  of  these  aspects  

including various orders of this Court, it cannot be claimed  

that the investigating agency was responsible for the delay.

14) Mr.  U.U.  Lalit,  learned  senior  counsel  for  Sanghian  

Pandian  Rajkumar  (A-2)  asserted  that  not  even  a  single  

person  implicated  him  in  the  commission  of  offences  as  

alleged  by  the  prosecution.    On  going  through  the  

allegations  pertaining  to  A-2  in  the  charge-sheet  and  the  

arguments of Mr. Lalit, learned senior counsel as well as Ms.  

9

Page 10

Indira Jaising, learned ASG, we are not inclined to express  

any  specific  opinion  at  this  stage.   However,  there  is  no  

dispute that A-2 was arrested on 24.04.2007 and A-6 was  

arrested  on  01.07.2007  and  both  of  them are  in  custody  

since then.  In other words, they are in custody nearly for a  

period of seven years pending trial.  Though the prosecution  

has filed the charges, admittedly, so far, the same have not  

been  framed  by  the  Court.   Both  the  counsel  for  the  

appellants pointed out that there is no chance of completion  

of trial in the near future due to voluminous documents and  

more than 600 witnesses.  We have already pointed out that  

the charges have not been framed even after seven years.  

Per contra, Learned ASG submitted that inasmuch as both  

the appellants are police officers, there is every likelihood of  

influencing  the  witnesses.   She  also  pointed  out  that  by  

giving  appropriate  direction  for  transfer  of  records  from  

Gujarat  to  the  transferee  Court,  i.e.,  special  Court  CBI  at  

Mumbai, Maharashtra and after completion of the translation  

work, a direction may be issued to the special court for early  

completion  of  the  trial.   We  also  considered  the  above  

1

Page 11

objection.  It is clear from the statement of Learned ASG that  

the  relevant  records/documents  are  still  pending  in  the  

original court at Gujarat as well as in the custody of Registrar  

General, High Court. They are yet to be transferred to the  

transferee  court.   It  is  also  evident  that  voluminous  

documents  are  to  be  translated  from Gujarati  to  Marathi.  

There is no concrete information about the probable duration  

for completion of the said work.  In such circumstances, the  

completion of trial cannot even be presumed in a reasonable  

period.  

15) Coming to parity, it is pointed out that some persons  

arrayed as accused have been granted either regular bail or  

anticipatory  bail.   In  order  to  appreciate  the  above  

argument,  we  culled  out  the  following  details  from  the  

impugned order of the High Court:

“(A) Regular Bail

(a) Ajay Parmar (accused No. 10), by the High Court of  Gujarat,  in  Criminal  Miscellaneous  Application  No.  5703/2012, by common order dated 30/07/2012

(b) Santram Sharma (accused  No.  11),  by  the  Gujarat  High  Court,  in  Criminal  Miscellaneous  Application  No.  5703/2012, by common order dated 30/07/2012.

1

Page 12

(c) N.K. Amin (accused No. 12), by Bombay High Court in  Criminal Bail Application No. 1770/2012.

(d) N.V. Chauhan (accused No. 13), by Hon’ble Supreme  Court  in  SLP  (Crl.)  No.  1627/2011,  by  order  dated  19/10/2012.

(e) V.A.  Rathod (accused No.  14)  by Hon’ble  Supreme  Court,  in  SLP  (Crl.)  No.  8318/2011,  by  order  dated  02/03/2012.

(f) Amitbhai  Shah  (accused  No.  16),  by  Gujarat  High  Court,  in  Criminal  Miscellaneous  Application  No.  1770/2012, which order has been confirmed by the Apex  Court,  by  rejecting  the  SLP  (Crl.)  filed  by  CBI  for  cancellation of said bail.

(B) Anticipatory bail:

(a) Ajay Patel (accused No. 17), by Gujarat High court,  which order came to be continued by way of interim order  passed by the Apex Court.

(b) Yashpal  Chudasama  (accused  No.  18),  by  Gujarat  High Court, which order came to be continued by way of  interim order passed by the Apex Court.

(c) Vimal Pattani (accused No. 20) by Special Judge, CBI,  Greater Mumbai (Sessions) on 05/07/2013 in Anticipatory  bail Application No. 773/2013.

(d) Gulabchand H. Kataria (accused No. 21), by Special  Judge,  CBI,  Greater  Mumbai  (Sessions)  on 05/07/2013 in  Anticipatory Bail Application No. 788/2013.

(e) Narasinhulu  Balasubramaniam (accused No.  22)  by  Special  Judge,  CBI,  Greater  Mumbai  (Sessions),  on  05/07/2013 in Anticipatory Bail Application No. 781/2013.

(f) Ghattamaneni  Srinivasa  Rao  (accused  No.  23),  by  Special  Judge,  CBI,  Greater  Mumbai,  on  05/07/2013,  in  Anticipatory bail Application No. 781/2013.”

1

Page 13

16) A  perusal  of  the  reason(s)  for  grant  of  bail  or  

anticipatory  bail  shows  that  some  of  the  accused  were  

granted bail by the trial court and some by the High Court  

and by this Court.  Apart from pointing out various orders,  

learned counsel for the appellants has brought to our notice  

the order passed by this Court in Naresh Vishnu Chauhan  

vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. in SLP (Crl.) No. 1627 of 2011  

wherein  Naresh Vishnu Chauhan,  who was one of  the co-

accused,  at  the  relevant  time  posted  as  sub-Inspector  of  

Police  and  was  attached  to  the  Anti-Terrorist  Squad,  

Ahmedabad.   In  spite of the fact that  the counsel  for  the  

State has pointed out that the case against the said person  

(A-13)  is  not  only  confined  to  Section  201  IPC  but  also  

includes Section 302 read with Section 120B IPC, this Court,  

taking note of the fact that he was in jail for over five years  

and three months, directed to release him on bail forthwith.  

17) Likewise,  another  co-accused,  viz.,  Vijay  Arjunbhai  

Rathod,  who  was  in  custody  in  connection  with  the  

encounter case and whose name was included in the list of  

1

Page 14

the accused,  was released on bail  by this Court,  by order  

dated 02.03.2012,  in  Vijay Arjunbhai Rathod vs. CBI &  

Anr. SLP (Crl.) No. 8318 of 2011.   

18) In addition to the same, another co-accused, by name,  

Amitbhai Shah (A-16) was granted bail  by the High Court.  

This Court,  by order dated 27.09.2012, in Criminal  Appeal  

No. 1503 of 2012 –  Central Bureau of Investigation vs.  

Amitbhai  Anil  Chandra  Shah  and  Another refused  to  

interfere with the said order.

19) It is also brought to our notice that another co-accused  

Dr. N.K. Amin (A-12) was also granted bail by the High Court  

of Bombay.  According to the CBI, the said accused was a  

part of what is called as ‘Stage 3’ conspiracy.  According to  

the CBI, he was sitting in the jeep in which the dead body of  

Kausarbi was kept.  No doubt, he was granted bail due to his  

ailments.

20) In the case of Balkrishan Rajendraprasad Chaubey (A-

6),  the  appellant  herein,  this  Court,  by  order  dated  

1

Page 15

06.08.2012  in  SLP  (Crl.)  No.  5166  of  2012,  granted  him  

interim bail  for a period of one month.  Even before that,  

earlier, on two occasions, he was released on bail for short  

periods and he never misused the privilege granted to him  

by the Court.

21)  We  need  not  go  into  the  reasonings  of  grant  of  

anticipatory  bail  to  some of  the accused since no serious  

allegations have been levelled against them.   

22) In  the  light  of  the  details,  allegations  in  the  charge-

sheet filed before the court, many of the co-accused were  

granted bail by the trial court/High Court and this Court and  

of the fact that both the appellants are in custody for nearly  

7  years  pending  trial  and also  in  view of  the  fact  that  it  

would not be possible for the special Court to conclude the  

trial within a reasonable period as claimed by learned ASG,  

we inclined to consider their claim for bail.

23) In the light of the statement made by learned ASG, we  

direct that all the materials pertaining to these cases which  

1

Page 16

are  lying  in  the  original  Court  at  Gujarat  as  well  as  the  

records relating to the same under the custody of the High  

Court of Gujarat, if any, be transferred to the Special Court,  

CBI, Mumbai within a period of one month from the date of  

receipt of copy of this order.  After receipt of all the required  

materials, the Special Court, CBI at Mumbai have to get the  

relevant documents alone translated within a period of three  

months  thereafter.   The  Special  Court,  CBI  at  Mumbai  is  

directed to take the assistance of the Registrars of the High  

Courts  of  Bombay  and  Gujarat  for  completion  of  the  

translation work as fixed.  By this order, we also direct the  

Registrars of the Bombay and Gujarat High Courts to render  

all  assistance  to  the  Special  Judge,  CBI  Mumbai  for  early  

completion of the translation work within the time stipulated  

by  this  Court.   After  receipt  of  the  required  material  and  

completion of translation work, we direct the special Judge to  

take all endeavor for early completion of the trial.     

24) In the light of what is  stated above, we are satisfied  

that both the appellants have made out a case for bail on  

1

Page 17

executing a bond with two solvent sureties, each in a sum of  

Rs  1  lakh  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  Special  Judge,  CBI,  

Mumbai on the following conditions:

(i) The appellants 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  

him to disclose such facts to the court or to any other  

authority.

(ii) The appellants shall remain present before the court on  

the dates fixed for hearing of the case, for any reason  

due to unavoidable circumstances for remaining absent  

they have to give intimation to the court and also to the  

officer  concerned  of  the  CBI  and  make  a  proper  

application  for  permission  to  be  present  through  

counsel.

(iii) The appellants shall surrender their passports, if any, if  

not already surrendered and if they are not holder of  

the same, that fact should be supported by an affidavit.

1

Page 18

(iv) In  case  they  have  already  surrendered  the  passport  

before  the  Special  Judge,  CBI,  that  fact  should  be  

supported by an affidavit.

(v) On such release, both of them (A-2 & A-6)  have to stay  

at  Mumbai  and  report  at  11.00  a.m.  on  alternate  

working days before the Special Judge, CBI Mumbai.

(vi) Liberty  is  given  to  the  CBI  to  make  an  appropriate  

application for modification/recalling the present order  

passed  by  us,  if  the  appellants  violate  any  of  the  

conditions imposed by this Court.

25) Under these circumstances, the appellants are ordered  

to be released on bail subject to the conditions mentioned  

hereinabove to the satisfaction of the court concerned.  With  

the above directions, the appeals are disposed of.                   

       ………….…………………………CJI.              (P. SATHASIVAM)                                  

[    .………….……………………………J.               (RANJAN GOGOI)  

1

Page 19

  .………….……………………………J.                (N.V. RAMANA)  

NEW DELHI; MARCH 28, 2014.

1