The single judge bench of Justice Arun Monga of the Punjab and Haryana Court in the case of Zahur Haider Zaidi Vs Central Bureau of Investigation merely on the ground of apprehension, based on unsubstantiated past conduct, it would be punitive and oppressive to the petitioner, besides being unjust and unfair to keep him in further preventive custody, given the change of circumstances since his last bail application was dismissed, more particularly in the light of already undergone inordinate incarceration. The bail was granted to the petitioner.
BRIEF FACTS
The factual matrix of the case is that the first bail application was dismissed by the session court and the same was also cancelled by the High Court. The supreme court granted bail however, during the trial proceedings, one of the witnesses, namely, Ms. Soumya Sambasivan, who herself is a serving IPS Officer in the State of Himachal Pradesh, had filed a complaint before her departmental superiors that the petitioner being a higher ranked IPS officer than her was trying to pressurize and influence her to depose in his favour during her slated testimony before the trial Court. To the similar effect, she also gave an application to the trial Court and in the course of recording of her testimony also deposed about the influence and pressure being exerted by the petitioner. The said alleged conduct of the petitioner was adversarially noted by the trial Court and perhaps taking a cue therefrom, the prosecution then filed an application for cancellation of petitioner’s bail. The trial court accepted the application for the cancellation of bail.
COURT’S OBSERVATION
The hon’ble court held that the petitioner has had a bitter dose. He would have learnt, though the hard way, consequences for trying to influence one of the witnesses. It would and should serve as a deterrant against repetition of similar attempt by him. It seems unlikely that once again hetread the same path in trying to influence or would be able at this stage, to exercise any influence on them. In my opinion, even assuming such hypothetical situation, it would be punitive and quite oppressive to the petitioner. It will be a travesty of justice to keep him in further incarceration indefinitely based on presumtions. Even assuming that on conclusion of trial, the petitioner would be convicted, still for the role ascribed to him in the commission of offences, it is highly unlikely that the extreme penalty of death would be awarded to him. In Dharam Pal v/s State (Division Bench) followed by Dalip Singh @ Deepa Vs. State of Punjab (Full Bench), this Court has held that in appeal against award of life imprisonment by trial Court, if the convict has remained in detention for five years, normally he would be entitled to suspension of sentence pending disposal of the appeal. Though it is not to be taken as any strait jacket formula for grant of bail, but the view of this Court (in Dharam Pal/Dilip Singh) is being relied upon as a mitigating factor for the purposes of according the concession of bail to the petitioner at this stage.
The hon’ble court after considering the overall scenario and without commenting on the merits of the case, granted bail to the petition, merely on the ground of apprehension, based on unsubstantiated past conduct, it would be punitive and oppressive to the petitioner, besides being unjust and unfair to keep him in further preventive custody, given the change of circumstances since his last bail application was dismissed, more particualry in the light of already undergone inordinate incarceration.
CASE NAME- Zahur Haider Zaidi Vs Central Bureau of Investigation
CITATION- CRM-M-32375-2022
CORUM- Justice Arun Monga
DATE- 21.10.22
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
