Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
ba177012
Tilak
CRIMINALAPPELLATEJURISDICTION
rt
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJUDICATUREATBOMBAY
C
ou
CRIMINALBAILAPPLICATIONNO.1770OF2012
DR.NARENDRAK.AMIN
...
Versus
APPLICANT
ig
h
UNIONOFINDIA,THROUGHCBI
ANDANOTHER
...
RESPONDENTS
ba
y
om
CORAM :
ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.
ORDER PRONOUNCED:
ORALORDER:
Theapplicantapoliceman,whowasworkingasDy.
2/20
ba177012
rt
C
ou
CBIPoliceStation,Mumbai. Therearetotally19accusedinthe
said case. The allegation against the applicant and the other
accused is that they have committed offences punishable under
section120BoftheIPCreadwithsections365IPC,368IPC,302
ig
h
IPCand201oftheIPC.
ThecaseoftheInvestigatingAgencyis,inbrief,that
ba
y
om
3/20
ba177012
otherpersonwereconfinedatafarmhousenearAhmedabadfor
rt
sometime,andlateron,Sohrabuddinwaskilledbythepolice. As
C
ou
encounterwiththepolice.Preparationhadalreadybeenmadefor
lodging of a false First Information Report to the effect that
Sohrabuddin had come to Ahmedabad for killing a prominent
ig
h
politicalleader,andthatSohrabuddinwastodothiswiththeco
operationandhelpofPakistanBasedIntelligenceAgencyISI,and
TerroristOutfit LaskareToyeba. Astorywascookedupthatsince
thepolicewereinreceiptofthisinformation,theyhadkeptawatch
ataparticularpointontheroadbywhichSohrabuddin,asperthe
ba
y
informationreceived,wastocome.That,whenSohrabuddincame
to the said place on a motorcycle, he was asked to stop by the
police,buthedidnotrespondtothesaidcallandopenedfireon
om
police.
Areporttothiseffectviz.thatapersonwhohadcome
4/20
ba177012
withthepolice,wasregisteredwiththeAntiTerroristSquad(ATS),
rt
Gujaratinrespectofoffencespunishableundersections120BIPC,
C
ou
121IPC,121AIPC,122IPC,307IPC,186IPC,24oftheIPC,vide
C.R.No.5 of 2005 of ATS Police Station. The said case was
investigatedintobyAccusedno.4MukeshbhaiParmar,workingas
Dy.SuperintendentofPoice,ATSGujarat,atthematerialtime,who
ig
h
filedanabatedSummaryReport.
SohrabuddinaddressedalettertotheHon'bletheChiefJustice
of India alleging that Sohrabuddin was in reality abducted from
ba
y
om
TheSupremeCourtofIndiadirectedtheGujarat
policetoinvestigateintothematter,pursuanttowhichthematter
wasinquiredinto,videPreliminaryInquiryNo.66of2006.Onthe
basis of the findings of the preliminary inquiry conducted,
investigationofthecasewastakenoverbyCID(Crimes)Gujarat.
Aftercompletionofinvestigation,theCID(Crimes)GujaratPolice
filedachargesheeton16January2007against13policeofficers
5/20
ba177012
rt
Magistrate,Ahmedabad.ThesaidRubabuddin,wasapparentlynot
C
ou
satisfiedwiththeinquirythatwasgoingon,andhadfiledaWrit
PetitionbearingNo.6of2007beforetheSupremeCourtofIndiaon
22January2007.Byanorderdated12January2010passedinthe
said petition, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court of India
ig
h
directed the CBI to investigate into the matter of the said fake
encounterofSohrabuddinandthemissingofhiswifeSmt.Kausarbi.
furthermaterialandimplicatedsomemorepersons,inadditionto
ba
y
the13accusedagainstwhomchargesheethadbeenfiled. These
newly added accused persons included Shri Amitbhai Shah, who
om
wasthentheMinisterofState,intheGujaratGovernment.
CriminalAppealNo.1503of2012withTransferPetition(Criminal)
No.44 of 2011, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court of India
transferred the said case to Mumbai. After the transfer, the
applicant, bythepresentapplication,hasapproachedthisCourt
prayingforhisreleaseonbail.
6/20
rt
ba177012
counselfortherespondentno.1CBI.
C
ou
Counselfortheapplicant.IhaveheardMr.H.S.Venegavkar,learned
Thisapplicationwas heardandwasbeingconsidered
ig
h
alongwithapplicationfiledbyacoaccusedMukeshbhaiParmar
Accusedno.4andotheraccused.Theapplicationfiledbythesaid
Mukeshbhai Parmar Accused no.1 has been rejected be me.
ba
y
bailcouldbedecidedinaproperandmoresatisfactorymanneronly
afterascertainingthecorrectnessofthecontentionsraisedabouthis
badhealth,asthatwasastronggroundcanvassedinsupportof
om
bail.Areportwithrespecttothehealthconditionoftheapplicant,
whohasbeenhospitalizedwastherefore,calledfromthe Civil
Hospital,Ahmedabad,whichhasbeendulyreceivednow.
10
submittedthatthereisnomaterialagainsttheapplicanttoshowhis
involvement in the alleged offences. He submitted that there is
7/20
ba177012
absolutelynothingtoshowthattheapplicantwasinvolvedinthe
rt
conspiracytokillSohrabuddin.Mr.Jethmalanipointedoutthatthe
C
ou
ig
h
connectedwiththemurderofSohrabuddinorevenKausarbior
withtheconspiracytomurderSohrabuddinand/orKausarbi. He
ba
y
alsopointedoutthattheapplicantisincustodyforaperiodofmore
than five years, and is presently suffering from serious health
problems. He also reminded the Court that the only primary
om
considerations,atthisstage,wouldbewhetherthereleaseofthe
applicantonbailislikelytoaffecttheinvestigationand/orthetrial
tobeheld,andwhetherhewouldbeavailabletofacethetrial.He
submitted that there is absolutely no possibility of the applicant
absconding, or not making himself available for the trial,
particularlyinviewofhisillhealth,andthatconsideringallthese
aspects,theapplicantdeservestobereleasedonbail.
8/20
rt
11
ba177012
C
ou
no.1,ontheotherhand,submittedthattheapplicantwasinvolved
notonlyindisposingofthedeadbodyofKausarbi,butalsointhe
murderofKausarbi.Hesubmittedthatthereissufficientmaterial
toshowhisinvolvementintheallegedoffences.Hesubmittedthat
ig
h
No.16).Healsosubmittedthattheapplicantwasinitiallygranted
bailbytheCourtofSessions,butthebailwascancelledbytheHigh
ba
y
om
reconsiderationofthematterwasnotnecessaryatall.
12
Ihavecarefullyconsideredthematter.
13
Ihavegonethroughthepolicereport/chargesheetand
thedocumentsaccompanyingthesame,whichhavebeenreferred
tobythelearnedcounselfortheparties.
9/20
Therecanbenodoubtthatthereissufficientmaterial
rt
14
ba177012
C
ou
inthepolicereportandtheaccompanyingdocumentstoindicate
thatindeedthepoliceofficialsofATSGujaratandSTFRajasthan
had entered into a criminal conspiracy to abduct the said
Sohrabuddin Shaikh from Andhra Pradesh in order to kill him.
ig
h
ThereisalsosufficientmaterialtoindicatethatSohrabuddinand
hiswifewereabducted,broughttoGujarat,keptconfinedatafarm
housenearAhmedabadforsometime. Thereisalsomaterialto
ba
y
WhatwastobeshownintherecordsafterSohrabuddinwouldbe
killedhadalsobeen,apparently,preplannedandasplannedafalse
First Information Report vide C.R.No.5 of 2005, was registered.
om
However,whatistheallegationagainsttheapplicant,andwhatis
the material by whichitis supported, must be examined, in the
contextoftheprayerforbail.
15
10/20
ba177012
rt
showthattheapplicanttookpartinkillingSohrabuddin,orwas
C
ou
presentatthesceneoftheoffencewhenSohrabuddinwaskilled.
Sincethisisconcededratherthisisnottheallegationagainstthe
applicantatallIdonotfinditnecessarytodiscussthisaspectof
thematteranyfurther. Theapplicantisallegedtobeinvolvedin
ig
h
ba
y
applicantweresitting.
16
thatwhatwasactuallytoldtoSohrabuddinandKausarbi,andwhat
om
wastherepresentationmadetothemonthebasisofwhichthey
were being brought from Andhra Pradesh, is not clear from the
11/20
ba177012
andbywhom,Kausarbiwaskilled. Indeed,thereissubstancein
rt
17
C
ou
learnedcounselfortheCBI.
Thereisnothingtoshowthattheapplicantwasaware
ig
h
AhmedabadfromAndhraPradesh.Thereisnothingtoindicatethat
hehadtakenanypartinthedetentionofSohrabuddinandKausarbi
at the farm house, and in fact, fake encounter of Sohrabuddin
whichtookplaceasplanned. Infact,atthecostofrepetition,it
maybeemphasizedthat,thatisnottheallegationatallagainstthe
ba
y
om
cameinpictureonlyafterthefakeencounterofSohrabuddin.
18
ThecaseoftheInvestigatingAgencyisthatKausarbi
whowasearlierkeptinDishafarmhouse,wastakenawaybythe
ATSOfficersofGujaratPoliceinaFronticartoArhamfarm.There
is a vague assertion in the chargesheet that she was thereafter,
eliminatedbythe'accusedpersons',andthatherbodywasburntin
thevillage'Illol'.
12/20
Theonlypreciseallegationagainsttheapplicantisthat
rt
19
ba177012
C
ou
hehadbroughtthedeadbodyofKausarbitotheplacewhereitwas
eventuallycremated.Thereismaterialtoshowthatthedeadbody
ofKausarbiwasbroughtinajeepinwhichtheapplicantwasalso
sitting. ThelearnedcounselfortheRespondentno.1specifically
ig
h
pointedoutinparagraphnos.28and29ofthepolicereport/charge
sheetforshowingtheroleattributedtotheapplicantinthealleged
offences; and the perusal of the contents of these paragraphs
indicatesthattheonlymaterialagainsttheapplicantisthathewas
sittinginthejeepinwhichthedeadbodyofKausarbihadbeen
ba
y
kept.Infact,thelearnedcounselfortheRespondentno.1conceded
that except this, and the fact that he was in touch with the co
accusedAmitbhaiShah(Accusedno.16),whowasatthematerial
om
againsttheapplicant.
20
Mr.RamJethmalani,inthisregard,submittedthatthe
telephoniccontactsbetweenthecoaccusedAmitbhaiShahandthe
applicant cannot be construed as a circumstance implicating the
applicant,atall.Hesubmittedthat,atthematerialtime,therewas
13/20
ba177012
acaseofkidnappingandinconnectionwiththatcase,theapplicant
rt
hadtospeakonanumberofoccasionswithAmitbhaiShah,who
C
ou
wasthen,theHomeMinister. Hepointedoutthattherewasno
materialtoindicateastowhatweretheconversations.
21
ig
h
thatthereliabilityoftheonlymaterialagainsttheapplicanti.e.
thattheapplicanthadtravelledinthesamevehicleinwhichthe
deadbodyofKausarbiwasbroughttotheplaceofcremationis
doubtfulevenatthisstage.Hepointedoutthatthereareanumber
of discrepancies in the material collected during investigation in
ba
y
thatregard.
22
Ideclinetogodeeperintothematteratthisstagefor
om
takingthematerialasitis,therearesomeglaringaspectsofthe
matter,whichcannotbeoverlooked. Thereis nomaterialinthe
chargesheet to indicate by whom, when and in what manner
Kausarbiwsactuallykilled. AtwhichplacethebodyofKausarbi
was put in the jeep, is also not revealed. At which place the
14/20
ba177012
applicantboardedthesaidjeep,isalsonotrevealed. Ithasbeen
rt
concededthattheinvestigationthathasbeencarriedoutdoesnot
C
ou
ig
h
cremated,aninferencethattheapplicantwasconcernedwith,and
involvedinthemurderofKausarbican,primafacie,bedrawn.This
seemstobedoubtful,keepinginmindthattheapplicantwasnota
partytotheoriginalconspiracythatwashatchedbetweenthepolice
officialsofATSGujaratandthepoliceofficialsoftheSTFRajasthan.
ba
y
WhenthecaseoftheInvestigatingAgencyisseenasawhole,the
murderofKausarbiwasnotinitiallyplanned.Kausarbiinsistedon
accompanyingherhusbandSohrabuddin,andthatishowshewas
om
broughttoAhmedabad. Shewaskilledasperhaps,therewasno
otheralternativeafterthekillingofSohrabuddinasKausarbicould
havebeenawitnesstowhathadhappened. Iftheapplicantwas
nottakeninconfidencewithrespecttothekillingofSohrabuddin,
thelikelihoodofhishavingbeentakeninconfidencebeforekilling
Kausarbi, cannot be readily presumed. The possibility of the
applicant's help having been taken (only) for the disposal of
15/20
ba177012
rt
circumstances,butevenonthebasisthattheapplicantwasinvolved
C
ou
intheconspiracytomurderKausarbi,hisroleinthemattercannot
betreatedtobeonparwiththosewhowerepartiestotheinitial
conspiracy of kidnapping and murdering Sohrabuddin. Even
23
ig
h
applicantwasapartofwhatiscalledbyhimas'Stage3conspiracy'.
comparedtothatattributedtothesomeotheraccused,including
ba
y
theAccusedno.4whoseBailApplicationhasbeenrejectedbyme.
24
Theapplicantisalsonotkeepinggoodhealth.Itmay
om
berecalledthattoascertaintheseriousnessoftheailmentsfrom
whichheissaidtobesuffering,andtoverifytheclaimsmadein
16/20
ba177012
rt
Hospital,Ahmedabad,andthereafter,heisbeingtreatedasindoor
C
ou
patientattheCivilHospitalAhmedabad. TheSummaryReportof
thehealthconditionoftheapplicantasmentionedinthesaidreport
isasunder:
ig
h
ba
y
sleepapnoeathegoldstandardtreatmentis
longtermuseofCPAP(continuouspositive
airway pressure) machine with humidifier
om
17/20
drugs,
other
ba177012
symptomatic
drugs,
rt
physiotherapyandcardiacrehabilitationby
25
C
ou
physiotherapist.
thattheapplicantisallegedtobeinvolvedinthematteronlywith
respect to the killing of Kausarbi, and not with the earlier part
ig
h
thereofviz.ofbringingSohrabuddinfromAndhraPradesh,killing
him and lodging of a false First Information Report to show the
deathashavingoccurredinanencounterwiththepolice.Healso
concededthattheapplicantissufferingfromseriousailments,and
ishospitalizedsinceaperiodofaboutoneyear. Hiscontentionis
ba
y
thattheapplicantisbeingtreatedproperlyintheCivilHospitaland
not that the applicant is suffering from serious health problems
om
requiringhospitalization.
26
Venegavkarwhileopposingthebailapplicationisonthefactthat
thebailgrantedtotheapplicantbytheSpecialCourtpreviously,
was cancelled by the High Court of Gujarat and that the
cancellationofthebailwasupheldbytheSupremeCourtofIndia.
HehasplacedmuchrelianceontheobservationsmadebytheHigh
18/20
ba177012
CourtofGujarat inCriminalMisc.ApplicationNo.12646of2007
27
C
ou
applicantbytheSessionsCourt,wascancelled.
rt
learnedSingleJudgeoftheGujaratHighCourtinthesaidorder,
ig
h
whichwereemphasizedbyMr.Venegavkar.Iamunabletoaccept
that the circumstances, as were existing at that time, have not
28
changedatall.
ba
y
stageatthattime,whichisafactorwhichmuchweighedwiththe
High Court of Gujarat in cancelling the bail granted to the
applicant. Now, the matter has been investigated by different
om
justifyingarelookatthematter.
29
Secondly,thehealthconditionoftheapplicantseemsto
havemuchdeterioratedsince20March2012asevidencedfromthe
factthathehasbeencontinuouslyhospitalizedsincethen.Serious
19/20
ba177012
C
ou
30
rt
questionofgrantofbail.
morethanfiveyearsback. Theapplicantpreviouslywasreleased
on Anticipatory Bail, and as such, had not been, sufficiently or
ig
h
satisfactorilyinterrogatedbythattime.Itisnobody'scasenowthat
theapplicantisrequiredtobeinterrogatedanyfurther.
ThecontentionofMr.Venegavkarthatdelayinholding
31
thetrialandthelengthofthepretrialdetentionisnotarelevant
ba
y
considerationforbail,cannotbeaccepted.Thoughbyitself,itmay
notbesufficienttojustify thereleaseonbailin caseofserious
offences,thatitisanextremelyrelevantconsideration,cannotbe
om
doubted.
32
Mr.Venegavkar,thelearnedcounselfortheCBIthattheHighCourt
of Gujarat having cancelled the bail granted to the applicant
previously,thequestionofgrantofbailtohim,atthisstage,cannot
be considered by this Court, as that would amount to
20/20
ba177012
reconsiderationofthesameissuesdealtwithbytheHighCourtof
33
C
ou
rt
Gujaratatthattime,which,accordingtohim,isnotpermissible.
theallegedoffences,asperthechargesheetitself,(ii)thenatureof
materialbywhichitissupported,and(iii)thattheapplicantisin
ig
h
custodyforaperiodofmorethanfiveyears,asalsothefactthat
(iv)heappearstobesufferingfromseriousailmentsandhasbeen
Applicationisallowed.
ba
y
34
hospitalizedon20March2012,Ithinkitfittoreleasehimonbail.
35
Applicantisorderedtobereleasedonbailinthesum
om
ofRs.30,000/withonesuretyinlikeamount.
36
learnedcounselfortheCBI,itisdirectedthatthisordershallnot
takeeffectforaperiodoftwoweeksfromtoday.
(A.M.THIPSAY,J)