Criminal Procedure Code

Project
on

Rajesh Ranjan Yadav vs.CBI and others.

Submitted by,
M.ARUN PRAKASH
BA0160010
Brief of the Case :

The case depends on the concept of Bail. The concept of bail is explained under sec 439 of
Criminal Procedure Code ,1973. This section talks about the special powers of the High Court
or Court of Session regarding Bail. The appellant appealed to Supreme court to grant bail. A
special leave petition was filed under sec 136 of the constitution and even this appeal has been
dismissed by the court.

Bail can be given to any person accused of the offence for which punishment is more than seven
years or exceeding seven years in custody be released on bail on certain conditions like he should
not cross the city or he should report to police station regularly and in case of any default the bail
can be cancelled.

If in any case the charges are not framed or the examination and trial is not done in stipulated
time then the accused has the right of default bail which the court cannot refuse.

An individual taking special permission to be heard in appeal against any high court/ tribunal
verdict is known as Special Leave Petition. This petition can be filed only in Supreme Court. It is
dealt under art 136 of the Indian Constitution. SLP is often mistaken as an appeal but it is a
petition filed for an appeal. Supreme Court on hearing the matter in SLP, if it deems fit, it may
grant ‘leave’ and that petition is then converted into an appeal.

In this case, SLP was filed by Pappu Yadav in the Supreme Court on a medical ground stating
that his medical condition required sophisticated life saving treatment which was only possible
outside jail.

Facts :

Rajesh Ranjan Yadav a.k.a Pappu Yadav was a member of parliament from Bihar, who was in
judicial custody for the past 5years and 7 months, as he was charged for the accusations under
302/34/120B of IPC and section 27 read along with section 5 of Arms Act by the Sessions Court
for committing murder on a broad daylight. Deceased Ajit Sarkar was a MLA from Purnia
constituency in the state of Bihar.

Initially Pappu Yadav filed an application of bail which was granted by the session’s court, but
was cancelled by the same court on the account of his conducts such as using cell phones in the
cell, hosting party on the news on grant of bail and threatening session judge and Inspector
General of Prisons. Later, the court asked Pappu Yadav to surrender.

The application for bail was filed in High Court several times but was rejected each time as he
didn’t follow the conditions of the lower court nor changed his conduct.
After that the appeal was filed under Article 136 of constitution of India against the order dated
27.04.2006 and the impugned judgement of the honorable Patna High Court. The court had
dismissed the appellant’s application for the bail, but with following observations “since the
petitioner had remained in custody for 5 years and 7 months in respect of the present case as per
submission on behalf of the petitioner, thereby trial court decided host trial 3 days a week on
average in order to support the spirit of the apex court order dated 3.10.05, as the trail could be
completed within 3 months without any further delay.

Later, the court had asked the defense to submit witnesses and to conclude the trial in a faster
phase, preferably within 6 months. If the trial couldn’t be concluded within 6 month from that
day, the petitioner had an opportunity to apply for the bail and thereby Rajesh Rajan Yadav a.k.a
pappu Yadav application of bail was dismissed at this stage.

Law Points and Arguments :

Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 says that it is the discretion of the court or
the police to release a particular person on bail in a non bailable case , which is not punishable
with death or imprisonment for life . But while releasing the accused the police or courts are
guided by certain principles which must be kept in mind. As per section 437(3)(c) , the last part
of this sub section talks about the ‘tamper of evidence’ . It is very important in any case because
once the person is released on bail he will commit the same kind of offence which will hinder the
process of investigation.

Article 21 of The Constitution of India states, “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal
liberty except according to a procedure established by law.”Article 21 secures two rights:

1) Right to life

2) Right to personal liberty

Liberty by procedure is established by law. Under the criminal laws of this country, a person
accused of offences which are non bailable is liable to be detained in custody during the
pendency of trial unless he is enlarged on bail in accordance with law. Such detention cannot be
questioned as being violative of Article 21 since the same is authorised by law.
1. Section 302 read with Section 120B of Indian Penal Code, Whoever commits murder
shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine; and
criminal conspiracy. With reference to the accused in this case, he was the prime suspect
of the murder of Ajit Sarkar and was proved in investigation to have been involved in a
conspiracy along with two or more people.
2. Section 27 in Arms Act. (1) Whoever uses any arms or ammunition in contravention
of section 5 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than
 three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. Here in
this case it was said that arms were used to murder the opponent of Pappu yadav.

Section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 talks about the punishment for Criminal
conspiracy .This section says that whoever is a party to criminal conspiracy to commit an
offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life, rigorous imprisonment for a term
exceeding two years shall be punishable under conspiracy.In the present case the an
allegation was made that the accused had hatched a conspiracy on Ajit sarkar and for this
reason he was charged under this section.

Section 273 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973,states that evidence should be taken in the
presence of the accused. In this due to custody of Pappu yadav it was not possible the
appellant lawyer contented that it is violation of right of the accused. Court later provided the
video conference facility in order to view the proceedings.
Section 317 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 gives provisions for the inquries and trial
being held in the absence of accused in certain cases. At any stage if the judge or magistrate
believes that the presence of the accused is not necessary so that there is no disturbance in the
proceedings he can conduct the proceedings without the accused being present in the court
and he can be replaced by his lawyer.

These are the law points which are attracted in this case and the contentions on both sides
are:

Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh ,the learned council for appellant urged that the proceedings of trial
should go accordingly without any delay. Although many bail applications are rejected by the
Supreme court the lower court to ensure that day to day examination should be done. He also
contended that the defence evidence is so far not completed due to the tactics of CBI and
therefore asked that appellant should be released.

Another point is also concentrated as the accused is kept in Tihar jail, Delhi but the
proceedings are being done in Patna Highcourt ,video conference facilities should be
provided to the appellant so that he can over see the proceedings but such facilities are not
being provided by them saying that the equipment is not working.

He also argued that the appellant was overweight and that he should go through invasive
surgical process which requires special care and nourishment .

In reply to the appellant an affidavit was filed on behalf of CBI stating the the delay was
occurred during the trial was only because of the appellant and the applications filed by the
appellant asking for one or other information and recalling of witnesses and because of that
conduct of the appellant the trial was delayed.CBI further said that court according ti the
sections 273 and section 313 of crpc should conduct the trial even when the appellant is not
present so that the trial can move fast.He also said that the appellant is being provided the
best medical facilitiy in Delhi from All India Medical Institute of Sciences and all needed
facilities are provided.
 Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh ,the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that his client is
just exercising his legal right and he should therefore not be faulted on that. CBI agrees what
ever is said by the counsel but it said that appellant do not have the right to say that the trial
is delayed because the main reason behind the delay is the acts of the accused.
CBI also said that they have gone through the medical papers of the accused and they did not
find any reasonable ground on which they can release him on bail . So the bail application
was eventually dismissed.
These are the contentions on both sides of the parties.

Judgement :

Court in the light of above circumstances held that the bail appeal was dismissed and it said even
on the medical grounds, court if it thinks fit need not grant bail. In this case court held that
sufficient medical facilities are made available by the jail authorities so that no bail is granted on
the basis of medical grounds.

The application was dismissed with following directions :

1. Court said that effort should be done in order to provide video conference facilitiy to the
appellant but according to the sections 273 and 317 of Cr.p.c ,even if they are not available
trial will go on to its conclusion.
2. If the video conference facility is available , then the appellant should be allowed to access
to his lawyer through the facility for about one hour on each day that that the final arguments
in the trial proceed.
3. The Tihar jail authorities will make sure that all the directions issued by the doctors with
respect to appellant will be observed and in case if the appellants medical condition requires
further treatment then for the orders at later stage he is at liberty to approach the court again.

The grounds on which the bail application was filed are :

1. The appellant is in the custody for more than seven year and the conduct of the appellant
is very good.
2. On the death of his father there is no other person to perform the things required as per
their tradition ,
3. , that no inculpatory evidence has come on record justifying his continued incarceration,
4. Even though the court ordered to complete the trial as fast as possible , the trial was no
where the completion.
5. The medical condition which the appellant is having required sophisticated treatment .

Court held that even demise of the father of the appellant is not ipso facto mean to release on bail
particularly on account of serious charges against him. Court also opined that when the case is in
the middle of the trial it cannot grant bail.
Finally court held that bail cannot be granted and it dismissed the application .
Comparitive Analysis :

The Supreme Court cancelled the SLP which was filed by the appellant on the basis that even on
the medical ground, a bail can be rejected. After analyzing the judgement we can say that in case
if the medical grounds are false or if the medical conditions can be treated within the jail then in
those cases bail cannot be granted .

In a case State of UP vs Atique Ahmad1 ,court held that a person cannot be released on bail if the
medical ailment by which he is suffering can be treated within the custody. In the above
mentioned case a specialist was available and there is no reason for granting the bail for
treatment . In case if they can be treated then granting of bail is not necessary. In this case as the
medical ailments of the RajeshYadav can be treated within the custody the court rejected the bail
application.
Court declined the bail on the ground of death of his father also because it felt that death of a
person cannot be the ground for bail in cases of serious offences where there is chance of the
accused absconding

In State of UP vs. Amarmani Tripathi , 2008 (8) scc 212 court gave certain matters on which the
bail can be rejected .They are :

1. Whether there is any prima facie evidence and reasonable ground to believe that the
person committed the offense.
2. What is the nature and the gravity of the offence done.
3. What is the severity of the punishment.
4. Danger of accused absconding.
5. Likelihood of the offence being repeated.
6. If witnesses are being tampered by him.

These are the grounds court mentioned in the above case. In the present case the offence
commited by Pappu yadav is serious in nature and there is danger of absconding because it was
said that he already prepared an anticipatory bail .
According to section 439 (2) of the Criminal Procedure code 1973, High court Or Court of
sessions , any person who has been released on bail can be arrested and commited to custody. In
this case bail was once granted to him but considering his behaviour the court cancelled the bail
and committed him to custody.

In Vaman Narain Ghiya vs State of Rajasthan3 , court held that balance should be maintained
between the Liberty of the accused and the investigation . Acutally any person should be released
on bail after 5 years of custody under trial but the Supreme Court said that as the case trial was
started it cannot grant the bail at this stage. In such cases Article 21 of the Indian Constituion is
violated and the personal liberty and right to bail is violated. But the court in Vaman Narain
Ghiya vs State of Rajasthan said that , no right is absolute and restrictions are placed on each and

1
State of UP vs Atique Ahmad [2002] (SC).
2
State Through C.B.I vs Amaramani Tripathi [2005] (SC).
3
Vaman Narain Ghiya vs State Of Rajasthan [2008] (SC).
every right. But it is true that one of the reason court should consider is the interest of society
before granting the bail to the accused.
Under section 439 of the Criminal procedure Code ,1973it is the power of the High Court or the
Supreme Court to grant a bail .

In Ram Govind Upadyay vs. Sudarshan Singh and others4 , court held that is the discretionary
power of court whether to grant bail or not to a particular person.

Conclusion :

Placing a key importance on the interest of the society , even though the detention is extended
and there are delays in the proceedings the SC had imposed reasonable restrictions on Article 12
of Indian Constituion which is Right to Liberty , by saying that it is inappropriate to grant a bail
when investigation is done and part of the trial is finished and the allegations are serious. In case
if the presumption of innocence is taken then in all the cases the bail is to be granted .The
detention of the accused can be done on grounds of the prima facie case,serious nature of charges
and sufficient evidences.

In this case the though the SC ignored the fact that all the prosecution evidences are presented
and the case was rested by the prosecution there is no chance for tampering of evidences and
witnesses it didn’t grant bail to the accused.

The grounds on medical issues in this case were not entertained by the court and it rejected the
bail application. The death of the father also didn’t become the ground for the bail as it is serious
offence.
Many bail petitions are filed by the appellants but all of them are rejected by the courts .The SC
also gave some directions for this particular case by stating that the trial procedure should be
done as fast as possible .And it is the right of the accused to be present at the trial but due to
custody he could not attend them and the video conference facility was also not provided by the
jail authorities. Court directed them to provide the facility of video conference so that can see the
trial proceedings.
So basing on all these grounds the Supreme Court rejected all the bail applications of the
appellant and issued certain directions to be followed.

4
Ram Govind Upadhyay vs Sudarshan Singh & Ors [2002] (SC).