Motamarri Appanna Veerraju @ Mav Raju vs The State Of West Bengal

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 328-331 OF 2020 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 1631-1634 of 2020) (Diary No. 43544 of 2019)

MOTAMARRI APPANNA VEERRAJU @ MAV RAJU Appellant(s)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondent(s)

O R D E R

Delay condoned.

Leave granted.

These appeals take exception to the judgment(s) and

order(s) dated 15.05.2019, 05.08.2019, 25.09.2019 and

27.11.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at

Calcutta in C.R.M. No.6471 of 2018 granting interim

protection to the appellant during the pendency of the

bail application which was filed in August, 2018 in

connection with offence punishable under Sections

384/385/389/119/403/120B/411/467/468/471/409 IPC and Signature Not Verified

13(1)(c)/13(1)(d)/13(1)(3) Digitally signed by ARJUN BISHT r/w 13(2) Prevention of Date: 2020.02.20 21:10:36 IST Reason:

Corruption Act, 1988.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 2

For the nature of order that we propose to pass, it

is unnecessary to dilate on the factual matrix of the

case, except to observe that the investigation in

connection with F.I.R. No. 27 of 2018, Daspur Police

Station has already progressed and is at an advance stage

of completion, as can be discerned from the chargesheet

dated 28.06.2018 and supplementary chargesheet dated

24.08.2019 qua the appellant before this court.

The Sessions Court rejected the bail application

filed by the appellant whereafter the appellant filed

regular bail application before the High Court in August,

2018. Instead of finally disposing of the said bail

application with promptitude, the High Court for the

reasons, which are not clear to us, chose to grant

interim relief to the appellant vide order dated

01.10.2018 and continued that protection until this day.

The order dated 01.10.2018 reads thus: -

“...Accordingly, we direct that the petitioner shall be released on interim bail upon furnishing bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties of like amount, one of whom shall be local, to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghatal, Paschim Medinipore, on condition that the he shall not leave the jurisdiction of municipal limits of city of Kolkata until further orders except with the permission of this Court and on condition that he shall provide the address where he shall 3

presently reside to the investigating officer as well as the trial court and on further condition he shall meet the investigating agency one in a week until further orders. He shall not intimate the witnesses and/or tamper with evidence in any manner whatsoever and he shall appear before the trial court on every date of hearing and in the event he fails to do so, his bail shall stand automatically cancelled without further reference to this Court.

Interim bail shall continue till 30th November, 2018 or until further orders, whichever is earlier. Matter will appear for further hearing th on 26 November, 2018.

Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be delivered to the learned advocates for the parties, upon compliance of usual formalities.”

As aforesaid, the High Court for some reason kept the

bail application pending from August, 2018 and instead

passed successive interim orders until 23.11.2019, which

are referred to above.

The last attempt made by the appellant was for

modification of the interim order passed on 01.10.2018.

That prayer, however, was answered against the appellant

as a result of which the appellant rushed to this court

by way of the present appeal.

In the facts of the present case, instead of deciding

the limited issue about modification of interim order

passed by the High Court, in the interest of justice, we

deem it appropriate to dispose of the main bail 4

application filed by the appellant, vide this order. We

are conscious that such a course should be ordinarily

eschewed but being convinced about the peculiar fact

situation of this case, that approach would meet the ends

of justice.

At the outset, we record our displeasure about the

manner in which the bail application filed in August,

2018 has remained pending before the High Court until

this day and only interim orders have been passed thereon

from time to time as referred to above. We have no

hesitation in observing that adopting such a course, that

too, by a constitutional Court, is wholly unfathomable

and must be eschewed. For, the application for bail or

anticipatory bail is a matter of moment for the accused

and protracted hearing thereof may also cause prejudice

to the investigation and affect the prosecution interests

which cannot be comprehended in this order. Such

application needs to be dealt with expeditiously and

finally, one way or the other and cannot brook delay.

It is not necessary for us to go into the question as

to who is responsible for the situation but, at the same

time, we need to deprecate the course or process followed

in the present case. We say no more.

5

Be that as it may, to do complete justice in the

matter, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the main

bail application pending before the High Court since

August, 2018 in terms of this order by modifying the

conditions predicated in the interim order(s) and which

had enured in favour of the appellant since 01.10.2018,

in the peculiar facts of the present case.

We are conscious of the fact that co-accused, whose

bail application was rejected by the High Court, had

approached this court and his Special Leave Petition

being SLP (Crl.) No. 10310 of 2019 has been dismissed by

this court on 09.12.2019. However, that order itself

makes it clear that even that accused is free to approach

the concerned Court after expiry of six months’ time, for

bail.

In our opinion, rejection of bail application of the

co-accused ought not to come in the way of the appellant

herein, who, as aforesaid, was granted interim protection

by the High Court vide interim order on 01.10.2018 and

which arrangement has been continued till now without any

adverse report against him, including of having jumped

any condition imposed by the High Court.

The only question is about the nature of conditions 6

to be imposed to ensure that the further investigation,

if any, against the appellant can be conducted in a fair

manner and also the trial against the appellant is not

affected either way.

Accordingly, after hearing both the sides, we deem it

appropriate to dispose of the bail application filed by

the appellant on the following terms:

1. The appellant shall furnish bail bond in the sum

of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Lakh only) with

two sureties of the like amount, one of whom shall be

local resident, to the satisfaction of the Additional

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghatal, Paschim

Medinipore.

2. The appellant shall not travel outside India

without prior permission of this Court.

3. The appellant shall not enter Paschim Medinipore

District except for attending the proceedings pending

against him in the concerned court, with prefix and

suffix of one day.

4. The appellant shall forthwith furnish his

ordinary place of residence to the Investigating

Officer, if there is any change from the one already

furnished by him in terms of this order. 7

5. The passport of the appellant already deposited

by him shall remain in the custody of CID, West

Bengal.

6. The appellant shall not intimidate the witnesses

and/or tamper with the prosecution evidence in any

manner whatsoever and he shall appear before the

trial court on every date of hearing and in the event

he fails to do so, his bail shall stand automatically

cancelled without further reference to this Court,

unless his presence has been expressly exempted by

the Court in advance, for reasons to be recorded

therefor.

7. The appellant shall report to the Investigating

Officer on first Monday of every English Calendar

month between 10 a.m. to 12 noon; and on such other

days and time as may be required by the Investigating

Officer for the purpose of investigation, provided 48

hours advance notice is given to the appellant in

that behalf.

8. The bail application filed by the appellant in

the High Court being CRM No. 6471 of 2018 stands

disposed of in terms of this order.

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms. 8

Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

…...................J (A.M. KHANWILKAR)

…...................J (DINESH MAHESHWARI)

New Delhi February 20, 2020 9

ITEM NO.43 COURT NO.7 SECTION II-B

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) D. No(s). 43544/2019

MOTAMARRI APPANNA VEERRAJU @ MAV RAJU Appellant(s)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondent(s)

(IA No. 5118/2020 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 5119/2020 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS IA No. 5121/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 5120/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 5122/2020 - PERMISSION TO FILE SYNOPSIS AND LIST OF DATES)

Date : 20-02-2020 These matters were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

For Appellant(s) Mr. Neeraj Kishal Kaul, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Vinay Navare, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Gaurav Bhargav, Adv.

Mr. Sameer Kumar, AOR Mr. Varun Mathur , Adv.

Mr. Bhuwan Mishra, Adv.

Ms. Niharika, Adv.

Mr. Sharukh Ahmed, Adv.

Ms. Nidhi Sahai, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Suhaan Mukerji, Adv.

Mr. Vishal Prasad, Adv.

Mr. Abhishek Manchanda, Adv.

Ms. Mehak Jaggi, Adv.

Mr. Aryan Dev Uniyal, Adv.

Mr. Ankit Dhawan, Adv.

Mr. Amit Verma, Adv.

Ms. Kajal Dalal, Adv.

Ms. Mehak Jaggi, Adv.

M/S. PLR Chambers And Co., AOR 10

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

Delay condoned.

Leave granted.

The appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed order.

Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(DEEPAK SINGH) (VIDYA NEGI) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)

[Signed order is placed on the file]