Page 1

Crl. A. No. ____ /2014 @ SLP(Crl.)No. 7898 of 2013  

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 357  OF 2014 [Arising out of Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 7898 of 2013]

Lingaram Kodopi ….............Appellant(s)

Versus

State of Chhattisgarh ….............Respondent(s)

With

Criminal Appeal No.  358  of 2014 [@ Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 7913 of 2013]

J U D G M E N T

A.K. SIKRI, J.

1.        Leave granted.

2.      Both these appeals arise out of common order dated 8.7.2013 passed by the  

High Court of Chhattisgarh, whereby applications for bail preferred by these two  

appellants were rejected.  

1

Page 2

Crl. A. No. ____ /2014 @ SLP(Crl.)No. 7898 of 2013  

3.       Appellants are related to each other. The appellant Lingaram Kodopi is the  

nephew of the appellant Soni Sori (Lingaram's father and Soni Sori's husband were  

the real brothers). Both these appellants have been implicated under Sections 121,  

124(1) and 120B of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 8 (1) (2) (3) of the  

Chhattisgarh  Jansuraksha  Adhiniyam  and  Sections  10  &  13  of  the  Unlawful  

Activities of the Act. For the alleged offence under the aforesaid provisions crime  

No.  26/2011  with  Police  Station  Kuakonda  district  Dantewada,  Chhattisgarh  is  

registered against them alongwith certain other persons. Both have been arrested in  

connection with the aforesaid case.  

4.     In nut-shell the prosecution case is that on 8.9.2011, the concerned police  

received secret information that these appellants are likely to work as conduit for  

paying huge amount to the Naxalties,  which was to be paid by Essar Company  

through co-accused B.K. Lala, a contractor of the said company, whose plant was  

operating in the naxal affected areas. The concerned police conducted a raid when  

these two appellants were in the process of receiving the amount of Rs. 15 lakhs  

from B.K. Lala at village Palnar weekly market at 1.00 p.m. on 9.9.2011. When the  

police party reached, a  pandemonium took  place and taking advantage thereof  

Soni Sori successfully escaped. However, Lingaram Kodopi and co-accused B.K.  

Lala  were  arrested  from  the  spot.  The  appellant  Soni  Sori  was  also  arrested  

2

Page 3

Crl. A. No. ____ /2014 @ SLP(Crl.)No. 7898 of 2013  

afterwards on 12.10.2011 in Delhi.

5.    As  per  the  prosecution,  in  the  present  case  different  aspects  of  naxal  

movements had appeared wherein these naxalites receiving huge amount of money  

from Corporate groups to further their activities of waging war against the country.  

Shri B.K. Lala, Accused No. 1 in this case is a contractor of Essar Company who  

was supposed to  pay money to these naxalites.  Both the appellants  were made  

conduits to receive money from B.K. Lala so that they could hand it over to the  

concerned  naxalite  persons.  Apart  from B.K.  Lala  and  the  two appellants,  one  

DVCS Verma  who is  the  General  Manager  of  Essar   Company  has  also  been  

implicated in the said case.

6.      These two other accused persons, viz. Shri B.K. Lala as well as Shri DVCS  

Verma were also arrested. However, both have since been enlarged on bail, Shri  

B.K. Lala who was arrested on 9.9.2011 was granted statutory bail on 4.2.2012, on  

the ground that  charge-sheet  was not  filed until  after  90 days from the date of  

registration of FIR. Shri DVCS Verma was granted bail on 3.1.2012. These two  

appellants however were denied bail by the Trial Court and, as mentioned above,  

even the High Court has rejected their bail applications. From the perusal of the  

order  of  the  High Court it  becomes  clear  that  the  High  Court  has  mainly  

been  influenced  by  the  serious  nature  of  crime  allegedly  committed  by  these  

3

Page 4

Crl. A. No. ____ /2014 @ SLP(Crl.)No. 7898 of 2013  

appellants. The High Court also took note of the statements of certain witnesses  

which were recorded during investigation and went through the case diary. As per  

the High Court since direct evidence was available against these accused persons  

showing their complicity, there was a prima facie evidence against the appellants to  

the effect that they were found to be working as conduit between Essar Company  

through B.K. Lala and the naxalites.  

7.      In support of plea for bail on behalf of  Soni Sori, Mr. Colin Gonsalves,  

learned Senior Counsel made detailed submissions, with lot of emphasis that the  

appellants were falsely implicated in this case because of previous animosity with  

the police authorities, of which they had become the victims over a period of time  

without any fault of theirs. It was argued that though the appellants were accused of  

collecting  money  for  naxalites,  in  the  entire  charge-sheet  and  the  evidence  

collected, there was no material which could show any link of these appellants with  

the naxalites. Mr. Gonsalves referred to the details of the case which was foisted  

against him by the police on previous occasions and in all these cases she was  

acquitted  by  the  courts.  According  to  him,  the  appellant  Soni  Sori  had  shown  

courage  in  filing  Writ  Petition  (Crl.)  No.  206  of  2011  in  the  High  Court  of  

Chhattisgarh which had become the cause of anguish for Chhattisgarh police. In  

that  Writ  Petition she stated that  she was tribal  woman from Village Sameli  in  

4

Page 5

Crl. A. No. ____ /2014 @ SLP(Crl.)No. 7898 of 2013  

Dantewada  district  of  Chhattisgarh.  Her  nephew  Mr.  Lingaram  Kodopi  on  

31.8.2009  was  kidnapped  by  the  Chhattisgarh  police  and  forced  to  become  a  

Special  Police  Officer  (SPO).  She,  therefore,  through the  brother  of  Lingaram,  

organized and filed a Writ Petition (habeas corpus) No. 5469 of 2009 before the  

Chhattisgarh High Court  as  a  result  of  which Mr.  Lingaram was released from  

custody.  He  thereafter  became  a  journalist  and  participated  in  several  TV  

programmes on the massacres and killings taking place in Chhattisgarh and he also  

took photographs of the houses of the tribals that were burnt by the Chhattisgarh  

police and these photographs were printed in magazines.  As a consequence she  

incurred the wrath of  police who started filing series  of  false  cases against  the  

appellant Soni Sori. Details of these cases are given in Para 8 of the 'Synopsis' to  

the Special Leave Petition.  

8.        Mr. Gonsalves further submitted that in September, 2011, Tehelka Magazine  

did a sting operation of the conversation which took place between the appellant  

and constable Mankar of the Kirandul police station, in which constable Mankar  

admitted in  a  phone conversation that  the appellant,  Soni  Sori  and her  nephew  

Lingaram Kodopi were being framed in the Essar case, and that Lingaram Kodopi  

was picked up from the house and not from the bazaar. The appellants have filed  

the  copy  of  the  CD  with transcription  and  excerpts of  the  conversation  are  

5

Page 6

Crl. A. No. ____ /2014 @ SLP(Crl.)No. 7898 of 2013  

reproduced in the SLP paper book as well. On that basis his submission was that  

this sting operation was enough to show that the appellants were framed falsely in  

the entire case.

9.      To buttress this submission of false implication, Mr. Gonsalves also pointed  

out that the appellant Soni Sori who was a teacher in a Government School had in  

fact been attending the school which was clear from the attendance register filed as  

Annexure P-1 to the SLP. Mr. Gonsalves also highlighted the atrocity committed on  

her by the police during her custody, particularly on 8.10.2011. He also submitted  

that because of the torture she suffered at the hands of police during interrogation  

on that day, her health deteriorated and she had to be admitted into the Dantewada  

district hospital at 9.30 a.m. on 10.10.2011. When she was taken to the Court on  

that day at 1.45 p.m. she was not even in a position to stand and walk. The police  

informed  the  Magistrate  by  falsely  stating  that  she  had  suffered  a  fall  in  the  

bathroom. From the court  she was taken to Jagdalpur Jail  from where she was  

taken to Maharani  hospital  from Jagdalpur  and admitted there at  8.00 p.m.  On  

12.10.2011 she was referred to Bhim Rao Ambedkar Medical College, Raipur.  

10.      Mr. Gonsalves also referred to the proceedings in Writ Petition (Crl.) No.  

206 of 2011 pending in this Court wherein the aforesaid worsening health condition  

of Soni Sori was explained and on 20.10.2011 this Court directed that she be taken  

6

Page 7

Crl. A. No. ____ /2014 @ SLP(Crl.)No. 7898 of 2013  

to  Kolkata  and  admitted  in  Nil  Ratan  Sarkar  Medical  College  and  Hospital,  

Kolkata.  The Court  also  observed,  while  giving this  direction,  that  the  injuries  

sustained by her do not prima facie appear to be simple as had been projected by  

the  Chhattisgarh  Police.  After  the  examination  of  Soni  Sori  by  the  aforesaid  

hospital in Kolkata and receiving the report from the said hospital, on 2.5.2012 this  

Court directed the Director of All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) to  

constitute a Board of Directors, which would include the Head of the Department  

of Gynaecology, Endocrinology and the Cardiac Department, to examine Ms. Soni  

Sori, as to her physical condition and, thereafter, to recommend the treatment to be  

undergone in AIIMS itself. At AIIMS she was treated for “vulval excoriations and  

scabies” and thereafter transferred to Raipur Central Prison and then to Jagdalpur  

Central Prison.   

11.      Mr. Gonsalves also argued that even other family members of Soni Sori have  

been tortured by the police. According to him, when Soni Sori was in custody her  

husband Anil Futane was arrested in July, 2010 and he suffered a paralytic stroke  

while in custody as a result of torture. There are in all four cases in which he was  

charged for maoist. His last acquittal order came on 1.5.2013 and thereafter he died  

in mysterious circumstances on 1.8.2013. He thus, submitted that after the death of  

her  husband  there  was  nobody  in  the  family  to  look  after  her  children  whose  

7

Page 8

Crl. A. No. ____ /2014 @ SLP(Crl.)No. 7898 of 2013  

condition had become miserable in the absence of any adult person to take care of  

them.  

12.      Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned Counsel appearing for Lingaram Kodopi, in  

addition, highlighted the circumstances under which his client became the target of  

Chhattisgarh  Police  which  had  forced  him to  become a  Special  Police  Officer  

(SPO). This was the reason for Soni Sori to file Writ Petition (Crl.) 206 of 2011.  

Mr.  Bhushan  also  sought  to  narrate  in  detail  the  same  kind  of  witch hunting,  

resorted to by the police qua Lingaram, filing series of false cases against him as  

well and he was acquitted in all these cases.  

13.      Mr. V.A. Mohta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State submitted  

that by well reasoned order, the High Court had rejected the bail application of the  

appellants  herein.  He  further  submitted  that  as  per  the  prosecution  cases,  on  

previous date confidential information was received from the IB that the appellants  

are going to receive money from B.K. Lala on 10.9.2011. B.K. Lala as well as  

Lingaram were nabbed on the spot whereas Soni Sori escaped. He also submitted  

that the main reason for acquittal of these appellants in other cases was that the  

witnesses do not come to Court for deposition as they fear threat to their own life.  

Though he did not deny that the bail was already granted to B.K. Lala and DVCS  

Verma, he however, submitted that if because of not handling the cases properly  

8

Page 9

Crl. A. No. ____ /2014 @ SLP(Crl.)No. 7898 of 2013  

they were granted bail, same benefit should not be extended to the appellants.

14.      Since in the present appeals, we are only concerned with the issue of grant  

of bail to the appellants pending trial,  it  may not be necessary to deal with the  

arguments  of  the  Counsel  for  the  parties  on  either  side,  in  detail,  for  obvious  

reasons. We would like to refer to the orders dated 12.11.2013 passed for these  

proceedings  whereby interim bail  was  granted  to  both  the  appellants.  Relevant  

portions of the said order reads as follows:

“It has been stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the  petitioner-Lingaram Kodopi - in Special Leave Petition (Criminal)  No. 7898 of 2013 has been in custody since 9th September, 2011  and the petitioner - Soni Sori in Special Leave Petition (Criminal)  No.  7913 of  2013 has  been in  custody since  4th October,  2011.  Since it is going to take some time before a responsible officer can  be present in Court in assisting the examination of the record, we  are  of  the  opinion  that  it  would  be  unjust  to  continue  the  incarceration  of  the  petitioners  during  the  pendency  of  the  applications for bail. We are also mindful of the fact that Soni Sori,  petitioner in Special Leave Petition (Criminal )No. 7913 of 2013 has  been acquitted in five earlier cases. Similarly, petitioner Lingaram  Kodopi in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 7898 of 2013 was  also acquitted in the earlier matter. It has also been stated that B.K.  Lala, co-accused has also been granted bail on 4th February, 2012.  In  these  circumstances,  we  are  of  the  opinion  that  it  would  be  appropriate to direct that the petitioners be released on interim bail  during the pendency of the bail applications. However, keeping in  view  the  submissions  made  by  Mr.  V.A.  Mohta,  learned  Senior  Counsel appearing for the State of Chhattisgarh, it would be in the  interests of justice to direct that the petitioners shall not enter the  State of Chhattisgarh during the period in which they are granted  interim bail. It is ordered accordingly.  

9

Page 10

Crl. A. No. ____ /2014 @ SLP(Crl.)No. 7898 of 2013  

At this stage, it has been brought to out notice by Mr.  Colin  Gonsalves,  learned  Senior  Counsel  appearing  for  the  petitioner in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 7913 of 2013  and  Mr.  Prashant  Bhushan,  learned  Counsel  appearing  for  the  petitioner in Special Leave Petition (Criminal ) No. 7898 of 2013  that the petitioners have not met their families for a long time and it  would be only humane if they are permitted to meet their families  before they travel to Delhi.

In view of the above, we direct the concerned Senior  Superintendent of Police to depute some responsible police officers  to escort the petitioners to their respective villages so that they can  meet their families for a period of 24 hours. On the following day,  the petitioners shall be escorted to Delhi. They shall be permitted to  reside in any locality of their choice in Delhi. Once the petitioners  reach Delhi, they are directed to report to the in-charge of the local  Police Station once a week. They shall report to the in-charge of the  local Police Station every Sunday at 11.00 a.m.”

15.     On the basis of the aforesaid orders, both the appellants are on bail with the  

condition that they would not enter the State of Chhattisgarh during this period.  

Other two accused persons have already been granted bail. Charges  are yet to be  

framed.  Soni  Sori  is  having  medical  problems  as  well.  There  are  certain  

circumstances, pleaded by the appellants, and if ultimately established, there may  

be a possibility of proving the innocence of the appellants. Soni Sori has lost her  

husband  and  has  to  look  after  her  children  who  are  of  tender  ages.  Lingaram  

Kodopi, who is a young man of 24 years, claims to be genuinely attempting to  

10

Page 11

Crl. A. No. ____ /2014 @ SLP(Crl.)No. 7898 of 2013  

establish himself as a good citizen in the society. Taking into consideration all these  

circumstances cumulatively and going by the past history, as demonstrated by both  

the Counsel for the appellants, we are of the opinion that the appellants deserve to  

be enlarged on bail during the pendency of trial on furnishing personal securities in  

the  sum  of  Rs.  50,000/-  with  two  sureties  each  of  the  like  amount,  to  the  

satisfaction of the Trial Court.  

16.     At the same time, we agree with Mr.  Mohta that there should be some  

stringent conditions for grant of bail to the appellants.  Accordingly, we order that it  

would be subject to the condition that the appellants shall report to the concerned  

police  station  once  a  week  i.e.  at  10.30  a.m.  on  every  Monday  to  show their  

presence. They would be permitted to take along their lawyer. Further, they shall  

appear before the Trial Court on each and every date of hearing and shall not seek  

exemption except when on a particular date they are unable to appear because of  

the reasons beyond their control, like illness etc. They shall also inform the Court  

about their place of stay/ residence and disclose to the Court as to when there is a  

change  of  residence.  Further,  they  shall  not  leave  the  station  or  travel  abroad  

without the prior permission of the trial court.

11

Page 12

Crl. A. No. ____ /2014 @ SLP(Crl.)No. 7898 of 2013  

17.       These appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

…........................................J. [S.S. NIJJAR]

…........................................J. [A.K. SIKRI]

New Delhi February 07, 2014

12