2001 JTR(SC) 718
2001 2 AICLR 401 ; 2001 AIR(SC) 1699 ; 2001 AIR(SCW) 1687 ; 2001 1 ALD(Cri)(SC) 806 ; 2001 43 AllCriC 6 ; 2001 2 Crimes(SC) 239 ; 2001 CrLJ 2187 ; 2001 5 JT 84 ; 2001 2 KLT 355 ; 2001 3 Scale 440 ; 2001 4 SCC 638 ; 2001 SCC(Cri) 795 ; 2001 3 SCR 57 ; 2001 2 UJ 1161 ; 2001 KHC 411 ; 2001 3 Supreme 55102
2001(3) Supreme 551
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Kerala High Court)
K.T. Thomas and R.P. Sethi, JJ.
Muraleedharan -Appellant
versus
State of Kerala -Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 507-510 of 2001
(@ SLP (Crl.) No. 1275-1278 of 2001)
Decided on 18-4-2001
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : U.R. Lalit, Sr. Advocate, E.M.S. Anam and Fazlin Anam, Advocates.
Act
Referred
:CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.438
KERALA ABKARI ACT : S.41(a), S.8, S.8(2)
(A) The provisions of the Kerala Abkari Act, specifically Section 8 and its subsection 8(2), which impose stringent imprisonment terms and fines related to grave liquor offences, are central to this case read with the overarching framework of the Criminal Procedure Code Section 438 on anticipatory bail. The analysis is further fortified by the principles enshrined in Section 41(A) of the Kerala Abkari Act, which mandates that no person accused of an offence attracting a sentence of three years or more can be released on bail unless the Public Prosecutor is given an opportunity to oppose the application and the court is satisfied of the accused's innocence and non-flight risk, a standard echoed in the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act Section 37. These statutory safeguards are invoked to scrutinize the legality of an anticipatory bail order granted by a Sessions Judge to an alleged kingpin in a mass casualty liquor tragedy, ensuring that the gravity of the offence and the need for custodial interrogation are not overshadowed by whimsical judicial discretion.
(B) Key legal principles include the stringent restrictions on bail for severe offences, the necessity of custodial interrogation to unearth criminal conspiracies, the misuse of discretion by lower courts in granting anticipatory bail, and the high threshold required to grant pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.
Facts of the case:
The accused, described as a kingpin, sought anticipatory bail from the Sessions Court while absconding due to his apprehension in a series of grave crimes, including an offence under Section 8(2) of the Kerala Abkari Act, following a major liquor tragedy causing numerous deaths and incapacitations. The Sessions Judge granted the bail, relying on the absence of direct material connecting him to the crime beyond a co-accused's confession, a reasoning deemed inappropriate by the High Court.
Findings of Court:
The Sessions Judge's order was found to be based on frivolous and wayward reasoning, demonstrating a lack of appreciation for the seriousness of the offences and the necessity of investigative closure. The High Court correctly reversed the order, noting that the investigating agency would inevitably gather more evidence and that the accused's anticipation of bail would improperly interfere with the judicial process.
Issues:
Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to an accused facing stringent imprisonment terms under the Kerala Abkari Act based on such unsatisfactory reasoning, and whether the Sessions Judge properly exercised his discretion under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in the face of statutory restrictions.
Ratio Decidendi:
The court held that anticipatory bail cannot be granted in a case involving offences with severe statutory penalties where custodial interrogation is crucial, especially when the lower court's order is predicated on unjustifiable and frivolous reasoning that ignores the necessity of collecting further evidence.
Result:
The appeals were dismissed, and the impugned order of the High Court reversing the anticipatory bail was upheld.
(A) The provisions of the Kerala Abkari Act, specifically Section 8 and its subsection 8(2), which impose stringent imprisonment terms and fines related to grave liquor offences, are central to this case read with the overarching framework of the Criminal Procedure Code Section 438 on anticipatory bail. The analysis is further fortified by the principles enshrined in Section 41(A) of the Kerala Abkari Act, which mandates that no person accused of an offence attracting a sentence of three years or more can be released on bail unless the Public Prosecutor is given an opportunity to oppose the application and the court is satisfied of the accused's innocence and non-flight risk, a standard echoed in the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act Section 37. These statutory safeguards are invoked to scrutinize the legality of an anticipatory bail order granted by a Sessions Judge to an alleged kingpin in a mass casualty liquor tragedy, ensuring that the gravity of the offence and the need for custodial interrogation are not overshadowed by whimsical judicial discretion.
(B) Key legal principles include the stringent restrictions on bail for severe offences, the necessity of custodial interrogation to unearth criminal conspiracies, the misuse of discretion by lower courts in granting anticipatory bail, and the high threshold required to grant pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.
Facts of the case:
The accused, described as a kingpin, sought anticipatory bail from the Sessions Court while absconding due to his apprehension in a series of grave crimes, including an offence under Section 8(2) of the Kerala Abkari Act, following a major liquor tragedy causing numerous deaths and incapacitations. The Sessions Judge granted the bail, relying on the absence of direct material connecting him to the crime beyond a co-accused's confession, a reasoning deemed inappropriate by the High Court.
Findings of Court:
The Sessions Judge's order was found to be based on frivolous and wayward reasoning, demonstrating a lack of appreciation for the seriousness of the offences and the necessity of investigative closure. The High Court correctly reversed the order, noting that the investigating agency would inevitably gather more evidence and that the accused's anticipation of bail would improperly interfere with the judicial process.
Issues:
Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to an accused facing stringent imprisonment terms under the Kerala Abkari Act based on such unsatisfactory reasoning, and whether the Sessions Judge properly exercised his discretion under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in the face of statutory restrictions.
Ratio Decidendi:
The court held that anticipatory bail cannot be granted in a case involving offences with severe statutory penalties where custodial interrogation is crucial, especially when the lower court's order is predicated on unjustifiable and frivolous reasoning that ignores the necessity of collecting further evidence.
Result:
The appeals were dismissed, and the impugned order of the High Court reversing the anticipatory bail was upheld.
JUDGMENT
Thomas, J.-Leave granted.
2. The appellant who was described by the investigating agency as one of the kingpins in a series of grave crimes including the offence under Section 8 of the Kerala Abkari Act (for short "the Act") found it easy to secure orders of anticipatory bail in all those cases from the Sessions Judge, Pathanamthitta. But the High Court of Kerala, within a month, reversed those orders of the Sessions Judge as per an order passed by a learned Single Judge which is sought to be impugned in this Court. These appeals by special leave are intended for that purpose. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant we did not think the necessity to hear the arguments of the counsel for the respondent State of Kerala. Hence we proceed to dispose of these appeals on the strength of the arguments of the appellant.
3. A number of criminal cases were registered sequel to the large scale deaths of persons in what is now known as the liquor tragedy in Kollam District (Kerala). A larger number of persons have been permanently incapacitated in the episodes. Arrested persons in connection with such cases remain in jails as bail has not been granted to them. Appellant apprehended that he would also be arrested in connection with some of those cases, if not in all. Hence, while remaining absconding, he approached the Sessions Court, Pattanamthitta, for benefiting him with a pre-arrest bail order. He got what he desired. The Sessions Judge who granted the order of anticipatory bail found from the investigation records that there are reasons to presume that appellant would also be implicated as an accused in the case. The serious objections raised by the Public Prosecutor in the Sessions Court did not have any impact on the Sessions Judge which is discernible from the flippant reasoning adopted by him for granting the pre-arrest bail order.
4. According to the Sessions Judge "no material could be collected by the investigating agency to connect the petitioner with the crime except the confessional statement of the co-accused". He also observed that "I do not think that any prejudice will be caused to the prosecution in the event of granting anticipatory bail especially when the petitioner has not so far been arrayed as an accused in the case."
5. It is disquieting that a Sessions Judge has chosen to adopt such inane reasoning for granting anticipatory bail in cases involving offences for which the legislature has imposed stringent restrictions even in regard to the grant of regular bail.
6. One of the offences involved is Section 8(2) of the Act which is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and a fine which shall not be less than Rupees one lakh. Section 41A of the Act says that no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment for three years or more shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless :
(1) "the Public Prosecutor or the Assistant Public Prosecutor, as the case may be, has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and
(2) Where the Public Prosecutor or the Assistant public prosecutor, as the case may be, opposes an application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offences and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail."
7. The above provision is in pari meteria with Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. This Court has held, time and again, that no person who is involved in an offence under that Act shall be released on bail in contravention of the conditions laid down in the said Section. Union of India v. Ram Samujh and Anr.1. If the position is thus in regard to an accused even after arrest, it is incomprehensible how the position would be less when he approaches the court for pre-arrest bail knowing that he would also be implicated as an accused. Custodial interrogation of such accused is indispensably necessary for the investigating agency to unearth all the links involved in the criminal conspiracies committed by the persons which ultimately led to the capital tragedy. We express our reprobation at the supercilious manner in which the Sessions Judge decided to think that "no material could be collected by the investigating agency to connect the petitioner with the crime except the confessional statement of the co-accused". Such a wayward thinking emanating from a Sessions Judge deserves judicial condemnation. No court can afford to presume that the investigating agency would fail to trace out more materials to prove the accusation against an accused. We are at a loss to understand what would have prompted the Sessions Judge to conclude, at this early stage, that the investigating agency would not be able to collect any material to connect the appellant with the crime. The order of the Sessions Judge, blessing the appellant with a pre-arrest bail order, would have remained as a bugbear of how the discretion conferred on Sessions Judges under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. would have been misused. It is heartening that the high Court of Kerala did not allow such an order to remain in force for long. By the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge of High Court an unwholesome benefit wangled by the appellant was rightly reversed.
8. The appeals are dismissed.
(C.R.) Appeal dismissed.
***************