Anticipatory bail: High Court granted anticipatory bail to private respondents – Accusation against private respondents was that during relevant time, they were officials either with the Kerala Police or with the Intelligence Bureau and were involved in filing false cases of espionage against scientists of ISRO – Writ petition filed by one of the scientist seeking appropriate action against the police officers – Matter travelled upto Supreme Court – The Supreme Court constituted a committee headed by former judge of Supreme Court to take appropriate steps against erring officials – Pursuant to recommendations of the Committee, CBI registered present FIR against 18 accused persons including the private respondents – By impugned order, High Court granted anticipatory bail to the private respondents – Instant appeal by CBI – Held: While granting anticipatory bail to the private respondents-accused, High Court neither considered the allegations against the respective accused nor the role played by them nor the position held by them at the time of registering the FIR in the year 1994 nor the role played by them during the investigation of crime – High Court also did not take note of the recommendations made by the Committee headed by a former Judge of Supreme Court – Impugned judgment granting anticipatory bail to the private respondents-original accused is, therefore, quashed and set aside – Matters remitted to High Court to consider the anticipatory bail applications afresh and thereafter to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Allowing the appeals and remitting the matters to High Court, the Court
HELD: 1. The High Court had made some observations without considering the individual role played by the respective accused when they were working in the Kerala Police/IB and without considering the nature of allegations against them, the matters need to be remanded to the High Court to consider the anticipatory bail applications afresh. It appears that what is weighed with the High Court is that FIR is filed after a number of years. However, the High Court did not appreciate at all that the FIR was lodged pursuant to the liberty reserved by this Court in the judgment and order passed in the year 2021. [Para 4][639-FH; 640-A]
2. While granting anticipatory bail to the respondentsaccused, the High Court did neither consider the allegations against the respective accused nor the role played by them nor the position held by them at the time of registering the FIR in the year 1994 nor the role played by them during the investigation of Crime. The High Court also did not take note of the recommendations made by the Committee headed by a former Judge of this Court. The impugned judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the High Court granting anticipatory bail to the respondents – original accused deserve to be quashed and set aside and the matters are to be remitted to the High Court to consider the anticipatory bail applications afresh and thereafter to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and on their own merits. [Para 5-6][640-B-E]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.