Supreme Court of India
RAJESH RANJAN YADAV & PAPPU YADAVversusCBI THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR
- Citation
- 2007 INSC 1209
- Decided
- 30 November 2007
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- S B SINHA
Holding
The Court held that no case for bail existed as the accused’s own delays, the seriousness of the charges, and the lack of compelling medical necessity precluded release.
Summary
The appellants, Rajesh Ranjanyadav and Pappuyadav, had been in custody for over seven years facing serious charges and filed multiple bail applications in the High Court and Supreme Court. They sought bail on grounds of exemplary conduct, the death of their father, lack of incriminating evidence, trial delays, and a medical condition requiring treatment outside jail. The CBI contended that the defence itself caused repeated adjournments, that many defence witnesses remained unexamined, and that the trial could proceed under Sections 273 and 317 of the CrPC even without the accused present. The Court observed that previous bail applications raising similar issues had been rejected and that the death of the appellant's father did not automatically merit release. It also found the medical reports insufficient to justify bail as adequate medical facilities were being provided in custody. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed, with directions for video‑conference facilities and strict compliance with medical instructions.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellants are entitled to bail despite prolonged pre‑trial detention and alleged trial delays
- Whether the death of the appellant's father or his medical condition justifies bail
- Whether the defence's own adjournments and failure to produce witnesses preclude bail
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 273, s. 317
Subjects
bailpre‑trial detentiontrial delaymedical groundsvideo conferenceCrPC sections 273 and 317CBI investigationserious charges
Judgment
RAJESHRANJANYADAV &PAPPUYADAV A
v.
CBI THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR
NOVEMBER 30, 2007
B
[S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.)
Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973:
Bail-Grant of-Held: No case for release on bail is made out- c
Several bail applications filed by accused on similar grounds earlier
rejected by the High Court/Supreme Court-Demise of father of
accused does not ipso facto entitle him to be released on bail
particularly when serious charges were leveled against him-Defence
'1. evidence not completed either due to absence ofdefence witnesses or
D
~ for seeking adjournment by them on other grounds-Release on
medical ground also not justified as the medical facilities being
provided to him-However, authorities concerned directed to provide
him video conference facilities and also to follow the directions issued
by attending doctors scrupulously-Directions issued.
E
Accused-appellant filed the bail application on the grounds that
he has been in custody for more than seven years and that his
conduct in jail has been exemplary; that on account of the death of
his father, there was nobody available to him to pursue the present
1 case; that no inculpatory evidence had come on record justifying his F
continued incarceration; that despite the orders of this Court from
time to time, the trial was nowhere near completion; and finally that
his medical condition required sophisticated life saving treatment
which was only possible outside jail.
Appellant contended that while dismissing one of the bail G
''-!
applications filed by him the trial court was directed to ensure that
the defence witnesses were examined on a day-to-day basis in
accordance with a fixed time schedule so that the trial was completed
717 H
718 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 12 S.C.R.
A as expeditiously as possible and the judgment delivered. However,
the defence evidence had so far not been completed on account of
the delaying tactics on the part of the CBI, under the circumstances,
it would be appropriate to release him on bail; that video conference
facilities were directed to be provided to him in order to enable him
B oversee the proceedings in the trial but the said facilities were not
being made available to him; and that as he was grossly overweight,
he was required to undergo some invasive surgical process which
required special care and nursing which could not be made available
while the appellant remained in custody.
c Respondent submitted that the delay, if any, in the completion
of the trial was on account of number of applications filed by the
appellant in the trial Court asking for one or other information or
the recall of witnesses; that the CBI had completed its evidence on
7.6.2006 and that a list of 43 defence witnesses had been given by
D the appellant of whom only a few had been examined and the case
had been adjourned time and again at the instance of the accused
or to secure the presence of the remaining defence witnesses; that
in the light of Sections 273 and 317 of Cr.P.C the trial could go on
even if an accused was not personally present and as such directions
E should be given by this court that notwithstanding the fact that the
video conference facility was out of order the court should go ahead
and complete the trial; that the appellant had been referred to the
best medical facility in Delhi at All India Institute of Medical
Sciences (AIIMS).
F
Dismissing the bail application, the Court
HELD:l.1. In the light of the facts that bail applications filed
by the appellant raising almost similar issues have been rejected,
no case for release on bail is made out; and that the demise of the
G appellant's father also does not ipso facto mean that he should be
released on bail more particularly on account of the serious charges .-
against him. [Para 2) (720-F, G]
1.2. It is clear from the orders that have been put on record and
H the additional counter affidavit on behalf of the CBI sworn by
i RAJESHRANJANYADAV &PAPPUYADAVv.CBI 719
THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR
Additional Superintendent of Police CBI, that the defence evidence A
had not been completed because the defence had often sought
adjournments or the defence witnesses had not been present. It is
found from a perusal of the orders of the trial court that the defence
has been procrastinating in the matter and not permitting the defence
evidence to proceed to its conclusion. [Para 5) (722-D, E, FJ B
1.3. It is true that on a few occasions the trial had been adjourned
on account of the non-availability of the video conference facility
whereas the record reveals that the adjournments had largely been
sought either by the co-accused or the appellant, on one pretext or
the other. (Para 5) (722-FJ C
2.1. Appellant's medical papers do not as of now justify his
release on bail even on medical grounds the more so as all medical
facilities are being made available to him by the jail authorities.
[Para 7) [723-B, CJ D
2.2. Following directions are issued:
(1) Every effort will be made to provide Video Conference
Facilities to the appellant but in the light of Sections 273
a!1d 317 of the Cr.P.C , the trial will go on to its conclusion E
even if they are not available;
(2) that in the event that the video conference facilities are
available, the appellant would be allowed access to his
lawyers through the aforesaid facility in addition for one
-1 hour on each day that the final arguments in the trial F
proceed.
(3) that the Tihar jail authorities will ensure that all the
directions issued by the attending doctors with respect
to the appellant will be observed scrupulously ; and
..
·~
(4) should the appellant's medical condition require further
G
orders from the Courts at a later stage, he would be at
liberty to approach this Court yet again.
[Para 7) [723-C, D, E, FJ
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Crl. M.P. No. 9066 H
720 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 12 S.C.R.
A and 11845 of2007.
In
Criminal Appeal No. 1172 of2006.
Applications for bail and for pennission to Appellant to attend and
B appear in person in Criminal Appeal No. 1172/2006. Y ~
Rakesh Kumar Singh, Jitendra Kumar and Prem Malhotra for the
Appellant.
A. Sharan, A.S.G., Amit Anand Tiwari and P. Parmeswaran for the
c Respondents.
The Order of the Court was delivered by
ORDER
~
D HAR.TIT SINGH BEDI, J. 1. This application for bail has been
filed directly in this court on the following grounds:
(1) that the appellant has been in custody for more than seven
years and that his conduct in jail has been exemplary;
(2) that on account of the death of his father, there is nobody
E
available to him to pursue the present case,
(3) that no inculpatory evidence has come on record justifying his
continued incarceration,
(4) despite the orders of this Court from time to time, the trial was r-
F no where near completion and, finally,
(5) that his medical condition required sophisticated life saving
treatment which was only possible outside jail.
2. We are of the opinion that in the light of the facts that several bail
G applications filed by the appellant raising almost similar issues have been
rejected no case for release on bail is made out. We are also of the opinion r
that the demise of the appellant's father also does not ipso facto mean
that he should be released on bail more particularly on account of the
serious charges against him. We are therefore left with the last two points
H
RAJESH RAN JANY ADAV & PAP PU YADA V v. CBI 721
THROUGHITSDIRECTOR[HARJITSINGHBEDI,J.]
for consideration. A
3. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the appellant
has very strenuously urged that despite the directions of this Court in
Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav v. CBI through its Director,
[2007] 1 SCC 70 while dismissing one of the bail applications filed by B
the appellant that the trial court was to ensure that the defence witnesses
were examined on a day-to-day basis in accordance with a fixed time
schedule so that the trial was completed as expeditiously as possible and
the judgment delivered, the defence evidence had so far not been
completed on account of the delaying tactics on the part of the CBI and
it was therefore appropriate that the appellant be released on bail. It has C
also been pointed out that a direction had also been issued that as the
appellant was lodged in Tihar Jail in Delhi and the trial was being
conducted in Patna, video conference facilities be provided to the
appellant in order to enable him oversee the proceedings in the trial but
the said facilities were not being made available to him as the equipment D
had been damaged. It has also been argued that as the appellant was
grossly overweight, he was required to undergo some invasive surgical
process which required special care and nursing which could not be made
available while the appellant remained in custody. Several documents in
support of the appellant's medical condition have been handed over to E
us in Court.
4. In reply a counter affidavit on behalf of the CBI has been filed
and Mr. A Sharan, learned ASG has drawn our attention to the enclosures
appended therewith to submit that the delay, if any, in the completion of F
the trial was on account ofrepeated applications filed by the appellant in
the trial court asking for one or other information or the recall of witnesses
and as such it did not lie in him to state that the trial was being inordinately
delayed. He has also pointed out that the CBI had completed its evidence
on 7.6.2006 and that a list of 43 defence witnesses had been given by G
the appellant of whom only a few had been examined and the case had
been adjourned time and again at the instance of the accused or to secure
the presence of the remaining defence witnesses. He has also submitted
that in the light of Sections 273 and 317 of Cr.P.C the trial could go on
even if an accused was not personally present and as such directions
H
r
722 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 12 S.C.R.
;--·
A should be given by this court that notwithstanding the fact that the video
conference facility was out of order the court should go ahead and
complete the trial. He has also pleaded that the appellant had been referred
to arguably the best medical facility in Delhi i.e. All India Institute of
Medical Sciences (AIIMS) and that all medical aid would be provided
B to him as per his needs. ~
~
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through
the record very carefully. In the cited case it has been observed that the
appellant had filed bail applications ad nauseam in the High Court and in
this Court and this an10unted to a misuse of the legal process and it had
c accordingly been ordered that no further bail application on his behalfbe
entertained by any Court. An application for review was thereafter filed
in the aforesaid matter and was allowed on 27.4.2007 only to the extent
that "in the event any occasion arises, the petitioner may move this Court
for grant of bail". The present application filed within a month of that date, lr
D is yet another in continuation of the series of applications raising almost
identical issues which have already been rejected by this Court. However,
as some additional points have been raised, we must deal with them as
well. It is clear from the orders that have been put on record and the
additional counter affidavit on behalf of the CBI sworn by Sh. Pyare Lal
E Meena, Additional Superintendent of Police CBI, that the defence
evidence had not been completed because the defence had often sought
adjournments or the defence witnesses had not been present. We find
from a perusal of the Zimni orders of the trial court from 2.5.2007 to
20.9.2007 that the defence has been procrastinating in the matter and not
F permitting the defence evidence to proceed to its conclusion. It is tme
that on a few occasions the trial had been adjourned on account of the
non-availability of the video conference facility whereas the record reveals
that the adjournments had largely been sought either by the co-accuse:d
Anil Kumar Yadav or the appellant, on one pretext or the other. It is also
G clear that several miscellaneous applications have been filed by the
appellant praying for a recall of witnesses and as they have been rejected •
the matters are in the High Court by way of appeal/revision.
6. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the appellant
has however submitted that the appellant was only exercising his legal rights
H
RAJESHRANJANYADAV &PAPPUYADAVv.CBI 723
THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR [HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J.]
in accordance with law and could therefore not be faulted on that account. A
We agree with the learned counsel to the extent that the appellant was
fully justified in exercising his legal rights but it does not then behove him
to say that the trial was being unduly delayed. On the other hand, as has
already been noted above, adjournments have been taken time and again
'I for the completion of the defence evidence whereas Mr. Sharan has, on B
the contrary, made a statement that the CBI would complete its arguments
within a week of the commencement thereof.
7. We have also carefully gone through the appellant's medical
papers that have been produced before us in court. We are of the opinion
that they do not as of now justify his release on bail even on medical c
grounds the more so as all facilities are being made available to him by
the jail authorities. We accordingly dismiss the application but while doing
so issue the following directions:
'1
(1) Every effort will be made to provide Video Conference
,). D
Facilities to the appellant but in the light of Sections 273 and
317 of the Cr.P.C., the trial will go on to its conclusion even
if they are not available;
(2) that in the event that the video conference facilities are
available, the appellant would be allowed access to his lawyers E
through the aforesaid facility in addition for one hour on each
day that the final arguments in the trial proceed.
(3) that the Tihar jail authorities will ensure that all the directions
issued by the attending doctors with respect to the appellant
will be observed scrupulously ; and F
(4) should the appellant's medical condition require further orders
from the Courts at a later stage, he would be at liberty to
approach this Court yet again.
S.K.S. Bail Application dismissed. G
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "bail"Sign in to search