Supreme Court of India was dealing with the petition challenging the order in which the appellant is denied bail which is sought under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Brief Facts:
The appellant was arrested on 08.05.2014 in connection with FIR for offences punishable under Sections 10, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 18A, 18B, 19, 20, 23 and 38 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. A chargesheet came to be filed against the appellant on 17.09.2014. Learned counsel for the State, does not dispute the fact that there are 109 witnesses. The appellant who is an undertrial prisoner, has already undergone a long period of incarceration. Thereafter the matter came up on 26.11.2021 wherein the complaint of the appellant that out of 180 witnesses cited by the prosecution, evidence of not even a single witness was complete was noted; the counsel for the State, was asked to get instructions and also to submit before the Court as to the approximate time within which the trial can be concluded. Pursuant to the said order, a report was filed by the Judge concerned wherein it was indicated that there is quite probability of taking at least 2 to 3 years in disposal of the instant case. The said report is dated 20.12.2021.
Appellant’s Contention:
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that witness named Devendra Patel has been declared hostile. As far as the other two witness - Hemant and Pappuram examined on behalf of the prosecution are concerned, it was pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is nothing in the deposition of the said witnesses which implicates the appellant.
Respondent’s Contention:
The basis of the case against the appellant appears to be largely the fact that he was found to be in touch with one of the accused and which is sought to be made good by conversations which the appellant is alleged to have engaged in with that accused on 31 occasions, who is a co-villager. According to the respondent, the said accused is the head of a sleeper cell module of Indian Mujahideen.
SC’s Observations:
After hearing both the sides SC stated that the appellant has been in custody as an undertrial prisoner for a period of nearly 8 years already. The appellant, it may be noted, is charged with offences, some of which are punishable with a minimum punishment of 10 years and the sentence may extend to imprisonment for life. HC stated that the condition in Section 43D(5) of the Act of 1967 has been understood to be less stringent than the provisions contained in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
SC Held:
After evaluating submissions made by both the parties the SC held that “the evidence which has already unfolded and above all, the long period of incarceration that the appellant has already undergone, time has arrived when the appellant be enlarged on bail. The prosecution seeks to examine as many as 109 witnesses of which only 6 witnesses have been fully examined so far. Accordingly, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and direct that the appellant shall be released on bail.”
Case Title: Jahir Hak v. The State of Rajastan
Bench: J. K.M. Joseph and J Hrishikesh Roy
Citation: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 605 OF 2022
Decided on: 11th April 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
