Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1984 (BOM)

Dahyaji Gobarji Vanzara v. State of Maharashtra

2014-09-11

ABHAY M.THIPSAY

body2014
Judgment : 1. The Applicant is the Accused no.1 in Sessions Case No.177/13 which has been clubbed with Sessions Case Nos.178/13, 577/13 and 312/14, pending before the Court of Sessions at Mumbai. The case arises out of R.C.No.BS-1/S/2010 dated 1st February 2010 registered with CBI SCB, Mumbai. The applicant was working as the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Anti-Terrorism Squad, in the State of Gujarat, at the material time. 2. This Court had an occasion to deal with the bail applications filed by some other accused in the said case, and the facts of the case -which are by no means ordinary or usual - were noticed while dealing with such bail applications. The facts, for the sake of convenience may be mentioned almost in the same manner in which they were mentioned in the orders dealing with some of the bail applications filed by some other accused in this case. 3. The case of the Investigating Agency, in brief, is that the police officials of Anti Terrorists Squad (ATS), Gujarat, and Special Task Force, Rajasthan, entered into a criminal conspiracy to abduct one Sohrabuddin Shaikh from Andhra Pradesh in order to kill him. That the said Sohrabuddin Shaikh, who had some criminal background, was attempting to extort money from some powerful businessmen from Gujarat and Rajasthan who had approached political leaders for their protection. It was planned, by taking high ranking Police Officers in confidence, that Sohrabuddin Shaikh should be got killed and should be shown as having died in an encounter with the police. Pursuant to this conspiracy hatched, Sohrabuddin, his wife Kausarbi, and one more person - Tulsiram Prajapati -were abducted from Andhra Pradesh. Sohrabuddin and Kausarbi were brought to Ahmedabad by the Police Officials from Rajasthan and Gujarat. (Tulsiram Prahapati was, from Sangli, taken elsewhere and killed later on, and this was also projected as 'death in encounter'). Sohrabuddin and Kausarbi were confined in a farm house near Ahmedabad for sometime. Later on, Sohrabuddin was killed by the police. As preplanned, it was projected as if he had been killed in an encounter with the police. Preparations had already been made for lodging of a false First Information Report to the effect that Sohrabuddin had come to Ahmedabad for killing a prominent political leader, and that Sohrabuddin was to do this with the cooperation and help of Pakistan Based Intelligence Agency ISI, and Terrorist Outfit Laskar-e-Toyeba. Preparations had already been made for lodging of a false First Information Report to the effect that Sohrabuddin had come to Ahmedabad for killing a prominent political leader, and that Sohrabuddin was to do this with the cooperation and help of Pakistan Based Intelligence Agency ISI, and Terrorist Outfit Laskar-e-Toyeba. A story was cooked up that since the police were in receipt of this information, they had kept a watch at a particular point on the road by which Sohrabuddin, as per the information received, was to come. That, when Sohrabuddin came to the said place on a motorcycle, he was asked to stop by the police, but he did not respond to the said call and opened fire on police. The police officers fired in retaliation, and in this firing, Sohrabuddin fell down on being hit by the bullets fired by the police. 4. A First Information Report to this effect viz. that a person who had come to kill a prominent political leader with the cooperation of the Pakistan Based Intelligence Agency etc., was killed in an encounter with the police, was lodged, as preplanned, by the Accused no.7 Abdul Rehman PI, who was a member of team formed by the Rajasthan Police for killing Sohrabuddin, and had come to Ahmedabad with the other members of the said team viz. M.N. Dinesh, Superintendent of Police, PSI Himanshu Rajawat and PSI Shyam Singh Charan. This FIR was registered with the Anti Terrorist Squad (ATS), Gujarat in respect of offences punishable under sections 120B IPC, 121 IPC, 121A IPC, 122 IPC, 307 IPC, 186 IPC, 24 of the IPC, vide C.R.No.5 of 2005 of ATS Police Station. The said case was investigated into by Accused no.4 Mukeshbhai Parmar, working as Dy. Superintendent of Police, ATS Gujarat, at the material time, who filed an abated Summary Report. 5. One Rubabuddin - brother of the deceased Sohrabuddin -addressed a letter to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India alleging that Sohrabuddin was in reality abducted from Andhra Pradesh and killed by Gujarat Police, and that Sohrabuddin's wife Kausarbi was also missing. 6. The Supreme Court of India directed the Gujarat police to investigate into the matter, pursuant to which the matter was inquired into, vide Preliminary Inquiry No.66 of 2006. On the basis of the findings of the preliminary inquiry conducted, investigation of the case was taken over by CID (Crimes) Gujarat. 6. The Supreme Court of India directed the Gujarat police to investigate into the matter, pursuant to which the matter was inquired into, vide Preliminary Inquiry No.66 of 2006. On the basis of the findings of the preliminary inquiry conducted, investigation of the case was taken over by CID (Crimes) Gujarat. After completion of investigation, the CID (Crimes) Gujarat Police filed a charge-sheet on 16 January 2007 against 13 police officers i.e. Accused Nos.1 to 13, in the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad. The said Rubabuddin, was apparently not satisfied with the inquiry that was going on, and had filed a Writ Petition bearing No.6 of 2007 before the Supreme Court of India on 22 January 2007. By an order dated 12 January 2010 passed in the said petition, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court of India directed the CBI to investigate into the matter of the said fake encounter of Sohrabuddin and the missing of his wife Smt.Kausarbi. 7. After investigation, the CBI collected some further material and implicated some more persons, in addition to the 13 accused against whom charge-sheet had been filed. These newly added accused persons included Shri Amitbhai Shah (Accused no.16), who was then the Home Minister in the State of Gujarat. 8. By an order dated 27 September 2012 passed in Criminal Appeal No.1503 of 2012 with Transfer Petition (Criminal) No.44 of 2011, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court of India transferred the said case to Mumbai. 9. A case in respect of fake encounter of the said Tulshiram Prajapati was also separately registered and investigated into by the CBI. This Tulshiram Prajapati could be a witness in the matter of the killing of Sohrabuddin and Kausarbi. Tulshiram Prajapati is said to be the person with those assistance, Sohrabuddin was traced by the applicant and other police officers. A separate case filed in respect of the murder of Tulshiram Prajapati, was, pursuant to the orders passed by the Supreme Court of India, treated as supplementary charge-sheet in the case relating to the murder of Sohrabuddin and Kausarbi, and the same was also transferred to the Sessions Court at Mumbai. The case against the applicant and other accused which is now pending before the Court of Sessions at Mumbai relates also to the murder/fake encounter of Tulshiram Prajapati. 10. The case against the applicant and other accused which is now pending before the Court of Sessions at Mumbai relates also to the murder/fake encounter of Tulshiram Prajapati. 10. I have heard Mr.H.H. Ponda, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.H.S. Venegavkar, learned counsel for respondent no.1 CBI. 11. Mr.Ponda submitted that the applicant is in custody since 24th April 2007 i.e. for a period of more than seven years. He also submitted that not only that the trial has not yet commenced, but even if it commences, it is not expected to be concluded within a reasonable time going by the volume of the record and the number of witnesses that are likely to be examined during the trial. He submitted that though a number of other accused in this case were earlier denied bail by various Courts, including the Apex Court, recently two of them viz. Sanghian Pandian Rajkumar (Accused no.2) and Balkrishna Chaubey (Accused no.6) (who had been denied bail by this Court), have been released on bail by the Supreme Court of India, primarily on the ground of the delay in holding the trial and the period of pre-trial detention undergone by the said accused. (Criminal Appeal No.698/14 and Criminal Appeal No.699/14 decided on 18th March 2014). He placed heavy reliance on the said order of the Supreme Court of India, and submitted that on the ground of parity with those accused - and also some other accused -who have been released on bail, the applicant also deserves to be similarly released. 12. Mr. H.S. Venegavkar, learned counsel for the CBI on the other hand, submitted that there was a strong prima facie case against the applicant, and that the role played by the applicant in the alleged offences is greater and more serious than that attributed to the other police officers, who have been released on bail. He submitted that the investigation has revealed that the applicant's involvement in the alleged offences was more than that of the other accused. 13. In the view that I am taking, it is not necessary to discuss the facts of the case as revealed from the police report and accompanying documents, in details. He submitted that the investigation has revealed that the applicant's involvement in the alleged offences was more than that of the other accused. 13. In the view that I am taking, it is not necessary to discuss the facts of the case as revealed from the police report and accompanying documents, in details. What however, needs to be observed is that there is sufficient and satisfactory material in the charge-sheet to show that Sohrabuddin and his wife Kausarbi were somehow brought from Andhra Pradesh (what exactly was told to them is not clear) to Ahmedabad by a team of policemen from Gujarat and from Rajasthan. There is sufficient material to indicate that a conspiracy had been hatched by the police officials from the ATS Gujarat and Special Task Force, Rajasthan, to kill Sohrabuddin; and that it was also planned that Sohrabuddin should be killed, and the death should be shown as having occurred in an encounter with the police. It is also clear that it was also planned to project that Sohrabuddin had come to Ahmedabad to kill a prominent political leader at the instance of the Pakistan Based Intelligence Agency ISI, and terrorist outfit lashkar-e-toyeba, and that since the police had already received information about it, a watch was kept at a particular place by the police; and that when Sohrabuddin came to the said place on a motorcycle, and did not respond to the call of the police to stop, and instead opened fire on the police, PI Abdul Rehman (Accused no.7) and other police officers fired in retaliation in which Sohrabuddin died. 13A. All this was exposed in the investigation that was carried out initially by the CID, Crimes, Gujarat, and later on by the CBI. 14. Kausarbi who had accompanied Sohrabuddin was also subsequently killed by the police. Tulshiram Prajapati though was initially with Sohrabuddin and Kausarbi, was not brought to Ahmedabad, but was taken to Rajasthan and killed much later. 15. The role attributed to the applicant in the alleged offences is quite serious and prominent. According to the Investigating Agency, he was involved in the conspiracy to commit murder of Sohrabuddin from the very inception. It is alleged that a false firing incident was staged to show the criminal background of Sohrabuddin in the hope that it would thereby be possible to catch hold of Sohrabuddin by showing him 'wanted' in that matter. According to the Investigating Agency, he was involved in the conspiracy to commit murder of Sohrabuddin from the very inception. It is alleged that a false firing incident was staged to show the criminal background of Sohrabuddin in the hope that it would thereby be possible to catch hold of Sohrabuddin by showing him 'wanted' in that matter. It is also alleged that the applicant was present at the place where Sohrabuddin was killed. It is also alleged that the applicant arranged to cremate and dispose of the dead body of Kausarbi. 16. There is sufficient material in the charge-sheet to support these allegations, and therefore, there exists a prima facie case of serious offences against the applicant. 17. The case relates to the killing of three persons by police officers at the instance of political leaders. It is also evident that the killing of Sohrabuddin was pre-planned, and it was also preplanned to show that it was an encounter. The offences in question, therefore, are of heinous nature, and ordinarily there would be no question of releasing a person who is accused of having committed such an offence, when there would be a prima facie case against him. 18. However, here the prayer for bail is canvassed basically on the ground that the applicant is in custody for a period of more than 7 years as an under-trial prisoner, and that the trial has not yet commenced, and further, that the co-accused in the case who are similarly placed, have been released on bail. In fact, the whole emphasis is on the order passed by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court of India releasing two of the accused in this case viz. Accused no.2 - Sanghian Pandian Rajkumar and Accused no.6 -B. R. Chaubey (Criminal Appeal No.698/14, and Criminal Appeal No.699/14 decided on 18th March 2014). 19. I have, therefore, carefully gone through the order passed by Their Lordships. Their Lordships, after having noticed the rival contentions and after highlighting the law relating to grant of bail in non-bailable offences, inter alia, took a note of the fact that the applicants before the Supreme Court were in custody for a period of about 7 years, pending trial. Their Lordships also observed that the Investigating Agency was not responsible for the delay. Their Lordships also observed that the Investigating Agency was not responsible for the delay. Their Lordships then recorded the details of the other accused in this case who had been, by then, released on bail, and it may be appropriate to reproduce the same here. (a) Ajay Parmar (Accused no.10) by the High Court of Gujarat, in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.5703/2012, by common order dated 30/07/2012. (b) Santram Sharma (Accused no.11) by the Gujarat High Court, in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.5703/2012, by common order dated 30/07/2012. (c) N.K. Amin (Accused no.12) by Bombay High Court in Criminal Bail Application No.1770/12. (d) N.V. Chauhan (Accused no.13) by Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Cri) No.1627/11, by order dated 19/10/2012. (e) V.A. Rathod (Accused no.14) by Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Cri) No.8318/2011, by order dated 02/03/2012. (f) Amitbhai Shah (Accused no.16), by Gujarat High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.1770/12, which order has been confirmed by the Apex Court, by rejecting the SLP (Cri) filed by CBI for cancellation of said bail. (B) Anticipatory Bail : (a) Ajay Patel (Accused no.17) by Gujarat High Court, which order came to be continued by way of interim order passed by the Apex Court. (b) Yashpal Chudasama (Accused no.18) by Gujarat High Court which order came to be continued by way of interim order passed by the Apex Court. (c) Vimal Pattani (Accused no.20) by Special Judge, CBI, Greater Mumbai (Sessions) on 05/07/2013 in Anticipatory Bail Application No.773/2013. (d) Gulabchand Balasubramaniam (Accused no.21) by Special Judge, CBI, Greater Mumbai (Sessions) on 05/07/2013 in Anticipatory Bail Application No.781/2013. (e) Narasinhulu Balasubramaniam (Accused no.22) by Special Judge, CBI, Greater Mumbai (Sessions) on 05/07/2013 in Anticipatory Bail Application No.781/2013. (f) Ghattamaneni Srinivasa Rao (Accused no.23) by Special Judge, CBI, Greater Mumbai, on 05/07/2013, in Anticipatory Bail Application No.781/13. 20. Their Lordships then observed as follows:- "A perusal of the reason(s) for grant of bail or anticipatory bail shows that some of the accused were granted bail by the trial court and some by the High Court and by this Court. Apart from pointing out various orders, learned counsel for the appellants has brought to our notice the order passed by this Court in Naresh Vishnu Chauhan Vs. Apart from pointing out various orders, learned counsel for the appellants has brought to our notice the order passed by this Court in Naresh Vishnu Chauhan Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr, in SLP (Cri) No.1627 of 2011 wherein Naresh Vishnu Chauhan, who was one of the co-accused at the relevant time posted as Sub-Inspector of Police and was attached to the Anti-Terrorist Squad, Ahmedabad. In spite of the fact that the counsel for the State has pointed out that the case against the said person (A-13) is not only confined to Section 201 IPC but also includes Section 302 read with Section 120B IPC, this Court, taking note of the fact that he was in jail for over five years and three months, directed to release him on bail forthwith." 21. Their Lordships then observed: "In the light of the details, allegations in the charge-sheet filed before the court, many of the co-accused were granted bail by the trial court/High Court and this Court and of the fact that both the appellants are in custody for nearly 7 years pending trial and also in view of the fact that it would not be possible for the special Court to conclude the trial within a reasonable period as claimed by learned ASG, we inclined to consider their claim for bail." 22. With this reasoning, the Appellants/Applicants before the Supreme Court i.e. Sanghian Pandian and Balkrishan Chaubey (Criminal Appeal Nos.698/14 and Criminal Appeal No.699/14) were released on bail. 23. There has been a further development in the matter after Sanghian Pandian Rajkumar and Balkrishan Rajendraprasad Chaubey were released on bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is that relying heavily - if not fully - on the release of the said two accused on bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, this Court released three other accused -Abhaysinh Chudasama (Accused no.15), M.N. Dinesh (Accused no.3) and Mukeshbhai Parmar (Accused no.4) on bail by an order dated 28th April 2014 (BA No.1757/13, BA No.1926/12 and BA No.618/14 (Coram A.R. Joshi, J). 24. Out of those three accused,Mukeshbhai Parmar's application was previously rejected by this Court (Bail Application No.1670/12 decided on 20th February 2013). 24. Out of those three accused,Mukeshbhai Parmar's application was previously rejected by this Court (Bail Application No.1670/12 decided on 20th February 2013). However, while releasing the aforesaid three accused on bail, this Court (Coram : A.R.Joshi,J) placed reliance only on the fact that the pre-trial detention of those accused had been for quite long, and that the Supreme Court of India had released co-accused Pandian and Chaubey on bail; and did not even refer to the previous order rejecting the bail application of Mukeshbhai Parmar. 25. Based on the release of M.N. Dinesh on bail, two other accused in this case i.e. Accused no.8 Himanshu Singh Rajawat and Accused no.9 Shyam Singh Charan were released on bail by me (Bail Application Nos.710/14 and 715/14 decided on 9th July 2014). The said two accused were from Rajasthan Task Force and were members of the Special team that was formed by accused no.3 M.N. Dinesh, purportedly for apprehending Sohrabuddin, but actually for killing him. Shyam Singh Charan's Bail Application was previously rejected by me (Bail Application No.1984/12 decided on 10th July 2013), but after bail was granted to M.N. Dinesh, not granting bail to the said two accused would not have been just or proper, and as such, they - who were clearly and directly under the control of M.N. Dinesh -were released on bail as aforesaid. Of course, the case of the said accused cannot be said to be on par with that of the applicant. 26. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge did not release the present applicant on bail, in spite of having been made aware of the order passed by the Supreme Court of India releasing Sanghian Pandian Rajkumar and B.R.Chaubey on bail. He was of the view that the case of the present applicant did not stand on the same footing as that of Pandian and Chaubey. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge observed that in the first place, the trial was likely to commence within a short time. He also observed that there was ample evidence to show that the case of the applicant stood on a different footing than that of Pandian and Chaubey, and also the other accused who had been released on bail. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge observed that in the first place, the trial was likely to commence within a short time. He also observed that there was ample evidence to show that the case of the applicant stood on a different footing than that of Pandian and Chaubey, and also the other accused who had been released on bail. He then discussed the material against the applicant, and came to the conclusion that not only that the applicant was involved in the killings of Sohrabuddin and Kausarbi, but was also involved in the murder of Tulshiram Prajapati. He held that there was sufficient material to indicate that the co-accused Ashish Pandya had killed Tulshiram Prajapati at the instance of the present applicant, and that the applicant had dictated the contents of the FIR that was lodged by the said Ashish Pandya for the purpose of showing the death of Tulshiram Pandya as having taken place in an 'encounter'. 27. The learned Judge therefore, concluded that the role played by the applicant in the alleged offences was greater than the other accused who had been released on bail, and that therefore, the applicant was not entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity. 28. Undoubtedly, I find that the observations made by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge about the role of the applicant in the alleged offences being greater than the other accused who have been released on bail by various orders passed by different Courts from time to time, are proper. The applicant's participation indeed in the alleged offences is of a greater degree. The applicant appears to be involved in every stage of the offences in question. He appears to be involved in the abduction of Sohrabuddin and Kausarbi. He also appears to have destroyed the dead body of Kausarbi by setting it on fire. It also appears that while posted as DIG, Border Range, Gujarat, he got Tulshiram Prajapati killed, and projected the death as having been taken place in an encounter with the police. He appears to have created a background for booking Sohrabuddin in a case of extortion, and for that purpose, appears to have forced Raman Patel and Dashrath Patel to make a false report against Sohrabuddin. It also appears that he had threatened the Patel Brothers, and demanded an amount of Rs. He appears to have created a background for booking Sohrabuddin in a case of extortion, and for that purpose, appears to have forced Raman Patel and Dashrath Patel to make a false report against Sohrabuddin. It also appears that he had threatened the Patel Brothers, and demanded an amount of Rs. One crore from them, and that, huge amount was actually extorted by him from Patel Brothers. 29. However, the real question is whether when Sanghian Pandian (Accused no.2) has been granted bail by the Supreme Court of India and when thereafter, M.N. Dinesh has been granted bail by this Court, (relying on the grant of bail to Sanghian Pandian and Balkrishna Choubey by the Supreme Court), whether it would be just and proper to refuse to release the applicant on bail. In other words, whether the cases of Sanghain Rajkumar Pandian and M.N. Dinesh (as also of some other accused in this case) on one hand, and the case of the present applicant on the other hand, are so drastically different so as to require a totally different treatment to be given to the applicant in the matter for bail. 30. If the material against Pandian and M.N. Dinesh is examined, it becomes clear that they were also actively involved in the alleged offences. While rejecting the Bail Application filed by Pandian, this Court (Coram U.V. Bakre, J) had noted the material against him as reflected from the charge-sheet. This Court had considered the period of detention that had been suffered by Sanghian Pandian Rajkumar, till then, but had held, by relying on the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav and anr. [ (2004) 7 SCC 528 ], that in cases involving the punishment for Life Imprisonment or death, the mere fact that the accused has undergone a certain period of incarceration would not, by itself entitle an accused to be released on bail. This Court, on the basis of the observations made by the Apex Court in the said case also concluded that the mere fact that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future also either by itself or coupled with the period of incarceration would not be sufficient for enlarging an accused on bail when the gravity of the offence alleged is serious. What is important in this context is not that Sanghian Pandian had subsequently been released on bail by the Apex Court, but that he was so released without contradicting or disagreeing with the views of this Court about the existence of a prima facie case against him, and without discussing or explaining its own observations in the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar (supra) on which reliance, as aforesaid, had been placed by this Court. 31. A careful perusal of the order passed by Their Lordships indicates that bail was granted to Pandian and Choubey on the following considerations :- (i) the period spent by them in custody as under-trial prisoners; (ii) that some other accused were released on bail by different orders passed by different Courts from time to time; and (iii) that, it would not be possible for the trial court to conclude the trial within a reasonable period. 32. As aforesaid, based on this, this Court has subsequently released co-accused Abhaysinh Chudasama, M.N. Dinesh and Mukeshbhai Laljibhai Parmar (BA Nos.1757/13, 1926/12 and 618/14 decided on 28th April 2014 (Coram A.R. Joshi, J). 33. All said and done, Pandian and M.N. Dinesh cannot be said to have played a minor or insignificant part in the alleged offences. Though there were of a rank lower than that of the applicant, they were also highly responsible officers of the rank of Superintendent of Police. They also belonged to the Indian Police Service. It cannot even be suggested that what they allegedly did can be attributed only to the instructions given to them by the applicant. M.N. Dinesh belonged to the Rajasthan police force and clearly he was not under the control of the applicant. He had formed the team, purportedly for apprehending Sohrabuddin, but actually his object was to kill Sohrabuddin. When Dinesh and Pandian have been released on bail, whether the applicant needs to be treated so differently so as to be kept in custody till the conclusion of the trial (which would be an indefinite period), is the real question that needs to be considered. In fact, this is what has been highlighted by the learned counsel for the applicant. 34. The reason for releasing Pandian and Choubey on bail does not appear to be that Their Lordships of the Supreme Court of India thought there was no prima facie case of the alleged offences against them. In fact, this is what has been highlighted by the learned counsel for the applicant. 34. The reason for releasing Pandian and Choubey on bail does not appear to be that Their Lordships of the Supreme Court of India thought there was no prima facie case of the alleged offences against them. That the gravity of the alleged offences was not much, or that the material against them is not satisfactory, is certainly not the observation made by Their Lordships, and that has not been the consideration on which bail came to be granted. Thus, even after accepting the existence of a prima facie case and the gravity of the offences, the said accused were released on bail; and the only considerations therefor, as appearing from the order passed by Their Lordships are (i) that they had been in custody for a period of about seven years, (ii) that several co-accused had been released on bail, and (iii) that it would not be possible for the trial court to complete the order within a reasonable time. These considerations would be available to the present applicant also. 35. Learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that the case of the prosecution is that Mr.Amit Shah, the then Home Minister of Gujarat is the main accused and Kingpin, and the police officers including the applicant, were acting at his instance. He contended that when such is the case, and when Amit Shah has been released on bail, it would not be just and proper to detain the applicant in custody. Though what the learned counsel submitted would be logical, in view of the fact that, that the Apex Court has already made it clear that grant of bail to Amit Shah, shall not be a ground for granting bail to the other accused in the case, this contention cannot be accepted. 36. It is evident that while releasing some other accused in this case on bail, and more particularly, Pandian and Choubey, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court of India have not given much importance to the specific roles played by those accused persons. 36. It is evident that while releasing some other accused in this case on bail, and more particularly, Pandian and Choubey, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court of India have not given much importance to the specific roles played by those accused persons. A view has been taken that when a number of co-accused in the case have been released on bail - some having played a major and serious role and some having played a lesser or minor role - have been released on bail when the pre-trial detention period has been about 7 years and when the trial is not likely to be concluded within a reasonable time, the accused persons should be released on bail. 37. It is true that in the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar (supra), Their Lordships of the Supreme Court had categorically laid down that in serious offences involving a possible punishment for death, or Imprisonment for life, mere length of pre-trial detention by itself entitle an accused to be released on bail. Their Lordships further observed that the mere fact that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future, also either by itself or coupled with the period of incarceration would not be sufficient for enlarging an accused on bail when the gravity of the offence is serious. However, in spite of these observations in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar (supra), having been quoted in the order passed by this Court rejecting the application of accused Sanghian Pandian Rajkumar (Bail Application No.2002/12), Their Lordships thought it fit to release S. Pandian and B.R. Chaubey on bail, without touching these aspects and only on the basis of the prolonged pretrial detention of the said co-accused, the release of some other accused in the case (without recording whether the role attributed to them was on par with that attributed to Sanghian Pandian and B.R. Choubey) and the delay and the unlikelihood of the trial being completed within a reasonable time. 38. Once a particular view is taken by the Apex Court, such view should be given due regard by this Court. 38. Once a particular view is taken by the Apex Court, such view should be given due regard by this Court. The attempt to try to distinguish between the case of those who have been released on bail by the Apex Court, and that of the applicant by a thread bare analysis of the material available against those accused, and the applicant, would not be justified, as, it is not on the ground of insufficiency of material to support a serious charge that bail has been granted to the co-accused, and more particularly to S.Pandian Rajkumar and M.N. Dinesh. 39. There is no basic difference between the role played by the applicant and by the said two accused. 40. In the result, though I find that the view of the learned trial Judge about the case against the applicant being more serious than the case of Pandian has sufficient basis, still, the distinction between the case of the applicant and that of Pandian, is so much that Pandian should be released on bail, but the applicant should be detained in custody and that too for an indefinite further period. Moreover, as aforesaid, subsequently, M.N.Dinesh also has been released on bail, and his role in the alleged offences is also equally obvious and supported by the material in the charge-sheet. The order releasing him on bail has not been challenged by the State and/or CBI and has thus, attained finality. 41. When the trial is not expected to be over within a short time, permitting Sanghian Pandian, M.N. Diniesh, Abhay Chudasama, B.R. Choubey, Parmar to be on bail, and insisting on the detention of the applicant in custody would not be just and proper. This would lead to an absurd result, which should be avoided. 42. I am conscious of the fact that this view would enable all the other accused in the case who are still in custody, to vehemently put forth a plea for bail, and in that case, it would be difficult if not futile - to make an attempt to distinguish their cases from that of the present applicant, S. Pandian, M.N. Dinesh, B.R. Chaubey and Mukeshbhai Parmar etc. However, that would be a necessary corollary of the view taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. However, that would be a necessary corollary of the view taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Once a particular view has been taken by the Apex Court, in a particular case, propriety requires that such view is given due regard and accepted. After all, the period of more than seven years is too big a period to be spent as an under-trial prisoner; and when some others -also actively and clearly involved in the alleged offences - have been granted bail, without bothering much about ascertaining their respective roles in the offences and the material by which it is supported, bail ought not to be refused to the applicant. 43. I find that while releasing the co-accused Sanghian Pandian Rajkumar and B.R. Choubey on bail, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court of India have imposed stringent and rather harsh conditions upon them. In the circumstances, I think it fit to impose similar conditions upon the applicant also. 44. Application is allowed. 45. Applicant is ordered to be released on bail in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/-with one surety in like amount, or two sureties in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-each, to the satisfaction of the trial Judge, subject to the following conditions: (i) The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts to the court or to any other authority. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the Court on all the dates fixed for hearing of the case. If for any sufficient reason, or due to unavoidable circumstances, the applicant would be unable to remain present before the trial court, he should give prior intimation to the Court and also to the officer concerned of the CBI and make a proper application for permission to be present through counsel. (iii) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the Investigating Agency, and shall consent for its retention by the Investigating Agency till the disposal of the case against him. In case the applicant does not hold a passport, he shall file an affidavit to that effect before the trial court within a period of 7 days from his release from custody. In case the applicant does not hold a passport, he shall file an affidavit to that effect before the trial court within a period of 7 days from his release from custody. (iv) After his release on bail, the applicant shall have to stay in Mumbai and report to the trial court at 11.00 a.m sharp on every Monday, Wednesday and Friday. Should the Court be closed on any such Monday, Wednesday and/or Friday, the applicant shall report to the trial court on the next working day. (v) The applicant shall not enter into the local limits of State of Gujarat without the express permission of the trial court. Liberty to the Investigating Agency to make an application to the trial court for cancellation of the bail, in the event of the applicant violating any of the conditions imposed upon him by this order. In the event of such an application being made, the trial court shall consider the same on merits, and in accordance with law, by treating this bail order as if passed by the trial court itself.