RABINDRA NATH SINGHversusRAJESH RANJAN @ PAPPU YADAV & ANR.

                        [2010) 5 S.C.R. 1156
             /



A                     RABINDRA NATH SINGH
                                   v.
           RAJESH RANJAN @ PAPPU YADAV & ANR.
             (Criminal Appeal Nos. 959 of 2010) etc .
                            .. MAY 3, 2010
B
         [MARKANDEY KATJU AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.]

         Bail:

c         Grant of bail to accused by High Court despite the
    directions by Supreme Court to the contrary* - HELD: The
    Court expresses its regret that bail has been granted by High
    Court for no good reason except by saying that the appeal
    was not likely to be heard in six months - Such a view cannot
    be approved of when a large number of applications had
0
    already been rejected earlier both by High Court and
    Supreme Court - Despite the clear direction of Supreme
    Court not to entertain any further application of the accused
    for bail, the order of the High Court granting bail amounts to
    contempt of the order of the Supreme Court - When it was
E   not found a fit case for bail before conviction, it is even less
    a fit case for bail after conviction - Impugned order of High
    Court set aside and accused directed to be taken into custody
    - Contempt of Court.

F        *Rajesh Ranjan Yadav Alias Pappu Yadav vs. CBI
    through its Director (2006) 9 Suppl. SCR 40 = (2007) 1 SCC
    70, referred to.

         Contempt of Court:

G        Tactics of Bench hopping - During the course of hearing
    of the appeal against order of High Court granting bail to the
    accused whose application for bail had been rejected a large
    number of times by High Court and Supreme Court earlier,
    counsel for accused handing over to the Bench a letter written
H                               1156
  RABINDRA NATH SINGH v. RAJESH RANJAN @                   1157
            PAPPU YADAV & ANR.

by accused that his case should be heard by the Bench of           A
which the Judge named therein was not a member - HELD:
Conduct of the respondent-accused is contemptuous -
However, the Court restrained itself from issuing a notice for
contempt of the Court against respondent-accused for
sending such a letter - Bail.                                      B

                     Case Law Reference:
    (2006) 9 Suppl. SCR 40 referred to                para 6
    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 959 of 2010.                                                   C
    From the Judgment & Order dated 18.02.2009 of the High
Court of Judicature at Patna in CR. APP. (DB) No. 418 of 2008.
                             WITH
    C.A. No. 960 of 2010.                                          D

    H.P. Rawal, ASG, A. Saran, Amit Pawan, V.K. Biju, C.D.
Singh, J.M. Abraham, B. Krishna Prasad, Rakesh Kumar
Singh, Vijay Pratap Singh, Prem Prakash, Arvind Kumar
Sharma for the Appearing Parties.
                                                                   E
    The following Order of the Court was delivered
                             ORDER
     1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
    2. Leave granted in both the petitions.                        F

    3. These appeals have been filed against the impugned
judgment and order dated 18.02.2009 of the High Court of
Judicature at Patna whereby the respondent Rajesh Ranjan @
Pappu Yadav has been granted bail in Sessions Trial No. 976        G
of 1999.      ·
     4. Learned counsel for respondent-accused handed over
to us a letter dated 1.5.2010 written by the respondent-accused
to his counsel wherein it is stated that the present case should
be heard by a Bench of which one of (Markandey Katju, J.) is       H
    1158     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 5 S.C.R.


A   not a member. The said letter is taken on record.

          5. Having perused the letter, we were inclined to issue
    notice for contempt of Court against respondent-accused for
    sending such a letter but we have restrained ourselves although
B   it is clear that the conduct of the respondent-accused is
    contemptuous. We make it clear that this court will not tolerate
    the tactics of Bench hopping· by an accused or any other
    person.

       6. We have considered the entire facts and circumstances
C of the case and also noted the fact that earlier two bail
  applications of the respondent-accused have been rejected.
  Apart .from that, in the case of this very accused. reported as
  Rajesh Ranjan Yadav Alias Pappu Yadav Vs. CBI Through
  Its Director (2007) 1 SCC 70, this Court has observed in para
D 24 as under.

         "24. On the facts and circumstances of the case, we find
         no merit in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly
         dismissed. We, however, make it clear that no further
E        application for bail will be considered in this case by any
         court, as already a large number of bail applications have
         been rejected earlier, both by the High Court and this
         Court."

F         We are surprised that despite the aforesaid clear direction
    of this court, the High Court has granted bail to the respondent-
    accused. In fact, such an order of the High Court amounts to
    contempt of order of this Court since this Court has observed
    that no further bail application of the accused shall be
    entertained.
G
          8. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the
    aforesaid decision was given rejecting bail pending the trial,
    whereas now bail was applied in appeal after conviction by the
    Trial Court. In o~r opinion, when it was not found a fit cased for
H
  RABINDRA NATH SINGH v. RAJESH RANJAN @                     1159
            PAPPU YADAV & ANR.

bail before conviction, it is even less a fit case for bail after    A
conviction.

      9. There are very serious allegations against the
respondent but we are not going into the same here because
we do not wish to prejudice the appellate court. Howeyer, we
                                                                     B
do wish to express our regret that bail was granted by the High
Court for no good reason except by saying that the appeal is
not likely to be heard in six months. If bail is granted on such a
ground then bail will have to be granted in almost every case,
even when the offence is heinous. We cannot approve of such          C
a view.

      10. For the reasons given, we set aside the impunged
judgment and order dated 18.02.2009 and allow these appeals.
It is directed that the respondent-accused Rajesh Ranjan alias
Pappu Yadav shall be taken into custody forthwith.                   D

R.P.                                           Appeals allowed.