STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. NARENDRA K AMIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) In Writ Petition (Criminal) 6 of 2007 praying for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus, while monitoring the investigation into the alleged killing of Sohrabuddin Sheikh and the disappearance of his wife, the learned amicus curiae brought to our notice an order of the Sessions Court granting anticipatory bail to Dr. Amin, a Deputy Superintendent of Police. He submitted that the said order was unsupportable and had an impact on the investigation itself. When the learned amicus curiae pointed out that the State of Gujarat has not even appealed against that order, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State of Gujarat sought permission of this Court to challenge the said order directly in this Court in view of the fact that this Court was already in seisin of the matter relating to the concerned crime and that in his view also, the order required to be challenged. Thereupon, we granted permission to the learned Senior Counsel for the State of Gujarat to file a Petition for Special Leave to Appeal against that order. When such a petition, the present one, was filed, we issued notice on the same in spite of the request of learned Senior Counsel for the respondent who had appeared on caveat, that notice need not be issued and the matter itself may be heard finally. Today, we heard learned Senior Counsel for the State of Gujarat, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent and the learned amicus curiae.

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel for the State of Gujarat submitted that the learned judge has travelled beyond the scope of an inquiry under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that he had dealt with the matter in such a way that it was almost like passing an order of acquittal. This was exactly the submission that the learned amicus curiae made the other day, which induced us to entertain this petition directly in this Court. Learned Senior Counsel for the State of Gujarat also submitted that there was no proper application of mind by the learned Sessions Judge to all the facts available and considering the gravity of the offence, the circumstances surrounding the transaction and the position occupied by the respondent, it was a fit case for refusing anticipatory bail. This was a case where custodial interrogation was a must. The Sessions Judge has also completely ignored the apprehension clearly expressed by the prosecution that the respondent, if granted bail, would be in a position to influence and coerce the witnesses into retracting statements already made and in not disclosing relevant information to the prosecution. This aspect has been totally ignored by the court while granting bail.