Summary
The Supreme Court finally disposed of a long-pending High Court bail application instead of merely reviewing its interim conditions. Bail proceedings require expeditious final decisions, and repeated interim orders over an extended period were deprecated. The accused had complied with interim protection without adverse report, distinguishing his position from a co-accused refused bail. Bail continued on revised terms addressing attendance, travel, residence, reporting and protection of witnesses.
Issues
- Whether the prolonged interim-bail arrangement should be finally resolved.
- What revised conditions would safeguard further investigation and trial.
Held
- Bail and anticipatory-bail applications require expeditious final adjudication. Protracted interim arrangements may prejudice both the accused and the investigation or prosecution. The exceptional circumstances justified the Supreme Court itself disposing of the pending application. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11, 12)
- Refusal of bail to a co-accused did not bar relief to this appellant, who had remained on interim bail since October 2018 without an adverse report or breach of conditions. (¶¶ 13, 14)
- The appellant must furnish a ₹25 lakh bond with two like sureties, one local; obtain this Court’s prior permission for foreign travel; and remain outside Paschim Medinipore except for court proceedings with one day on either side. His passport remains with CID and changes of ordinary residence must be reported. (¶ 16)
- He must not intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence and must attend each trial hearing unless expressly exempted in advance by a reasoned order, failing which bail stands automatically cancelled. Reporting is required on the first Monday of each calendar month between 10 a.m. and noon and when otherwise required on forty-eight hours’ advance notice. (¶ 16)
Result
High Court bail application and appeals disposed of on the revised conditions; pending applications disposed of.