Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 953 (JHR)

Brijpal Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2015-08-12

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2015
Order : Heard Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. K.P. Deo, learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I. 2. By way of this application, the petitioner has prayed for modification of order dated 15.9.2004 passed in A.B.A. No. 1139 of 2004. 3. In A.B.A. No. 1139 of 2004, the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 15.9.2004 with certain terms and conditions, which are quoted herein below:- 1. Unless specifically exempted by an order of the Court, the Petitioner must be present on each and every date and assist the Trial failing which their bail bonds shall stand forfeited; 2. During the period when the trial is going on, the Petitioners would not leave the country, even on official work and if they are sent or permitted to go outside the country on any official work, the Chairman-cum-managing Director shall be held responsible for interfering with the course of justice; 3. If any of the above conditions are breached, their bail bonds shall stand cancelled and the Petitioners shall be taken into custody. 4. Mr. P. P. N. Roy, learned senior counsel submits that the petitioner has been abiding by the conditions imposed by this Court vide order dated 15.9.2004 passed in A.B.A. No. 1139 of 2004, but since the petitioner is now suffering from several ailments, order dated 15.9.2004 be modified with respect to condition No. 1, relating to presence of the petitioner on each and every date before the learned trial court. 5. Earlier the petitioner had filed an application being I.A. No. 1578 of 2010 for modification of order dated 15.9.2004 passed in A.B.A. No. 1139 of 2004. However, the same was rejected on 30.6.2010. During the pendency of the present application, a report was called for from the learned trial court with respect to the stage of the case and the reasons as to why the case has been delayed for long. Report as called for vide order dated 22.7.2015 has been received. In the report details have been given as to why the case has been delayed and it appears that charges have not been framed till date. 6. Mr. Report as called for vide order dated 22.7.2015 has been received. In the report details have been given as to why the case has been delayed and it appears that charges have not been framed till date. 6. Mr. K. P. Deo, learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I. has submitted that since the case relates to bitumen scam, presence of petitioner on each and every date in the trial is necessary and taking into consideration the said fact, conditions were imposed while granting bail to the petitioner vide order dated 15.9.2004. It has further been submitted that the prayer of the petitioner for modification of order dated 15.9.2004 with respect to condition No. 1 may be considered only after the charges are framed. 7. The report which has been submitted by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi reflects that due to various reasons the disposal of the case has been delayed. It appears that the petitioner along with three accused persons had preferred an application u/s 306 Cr.P.C. on 4.4.2014 and rejoinder to the same was filed by the prosecution on 16.1.2015. The petition was heard and finally argument of the accused persons was concluded on 18.6.2015 and on 6.8.2015 after the arguments of both the parties were heard, an order was passed on the petition filed u/s 306 Cr.P.C. Apart from the aforesaid, which is with respect to the petition filed u/s 306 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner and other accused persons, there are other reasons also and for which the delay cannot be attributed to the accused persons. Moreover, the reasons which have been enumerated in the letter dated 7.8.2015 do not speak that the petitioner was responsible for the delay in the trial. 8. The case was instituted in the year 1997. The order by which the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail is dated 15.9.2004. It is not the case of the opposite party C.B.I. that the petitioner had adopted dilatory tactics in getting the disposal of the case delayed. Much stress has been made on the order dated 30.6.2010 by which the earlier application for modification of order dated 15.9.2004 passed in A.B.A. No. 1139 of 2004 was rejected. Learned senior counsel at this juncture has submitted that since there was no cogent reasons submitted by the petitioner for modification of order dated 15.9.2004, application for modification was rejected. Much stress has been made on the order dated 30.6.2010 by which the earlier application for modification of order dated 15.9.2004 passed in A.B.A. No. 1139 of 2004 was rejected. Learned senior counsel at this juncture has submitted that since there was no cogent reasons submitted by the petitioner for modification of order dated 15.9.2004, application for modification was rejected. However as has been submitted, the cogent reasons exist in this petition with respect to the ailments of the petitioner as well as the fact that the petitioner on attaining the age of 60 years has already retired from service in March, 2015. 9. Since the case is pending from 1997 and even after expiry of more than 17 years, the end is not in sight and considering the ailment being suffered by the petitioner, I feel inclined to modify the order dated 15.9.2004 with respect to condition No. 1 only. 10. In such circumstances, condition No. 1 of the order dated 15.9.2004 passed in A.B.A. No. 1139 of 2004 is expunged and modified to the extent that the petitioner shall make himself present before the learned trial court as and when such appearance is required by the learned trial court. It is however made clear that if in spite of the order of the learned trial court, the petitioner does not make himself present on the appointed dates, the bail bond of the petitioner shall automatically stand cancelled. 11. This application is allowed and disposed of to the extent mentioned herein above.