SANTOSH KUMAR JAISWAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the CBI case R.C.No. 6/2009, under Section 120B read with Section 302, 364, 501 and 218 IPC, registered at P.S. Dalanwala, Dehradun, 18 persons were arrayed as accused Nos. 1 to 18. The accused at serial No. 1 to 7 were granted bail by the High Court of Uttarakhand on 20.01.2010. Aggrieved therefrom, the complainant, who is the father of the deceased, filed two petitions before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. One of those petitions was for transfer of the case from Dehradun and another for cancellation of bail of these accused persons No. 1 to 7. Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 17.3.2011 set aside the order of granting bail to these accused Nos. 1 to 7 and also transferred the said case from Dehradun to Delhi. The said decision is reported as Ravindra Pal Singh Vs. Ajit Singh and Another, (2011) 4 SCC 238. The instant Bail Application No. 315/2012 has been filed in this court by these accused Nos. 1 to 7 for grant of regular bail.

(2.) ACCUSED Nos. 8 to 18 in the aforesaid FIR were granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Dehradun on the plea that they were charge- sheeted for the bailable offence.

(3.) THE aforenoted decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is found reported in Ravinder Pal Singh(supra). After the aforesaid order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it would not be appropriate to entertain the plea that the offence against the petitioners was not serious or that no prima facie case was made out against them or that the deceased was himself to be blamed or faulted. From the impugned order, it is noted that as many as 33 prosecution witnesses have been examined and even some of the witnesses who have made supporting statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C., have turned hostile. In this regard, it was submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for the CBI that some of the accused persons are at large and they are influencing or exercising duress upon the witnesses after grant of protection by this Court vide order dated 29 th November, 2011. Specific reference is made to the statement of Mahipal Singh Rawat who has turned hostile in his statement made on 25th April, 2012. THE Special Judge who is recording the evidence has also specifically noted that the apprehension of the prosecution regarding the accused persons exercising duress on the remaining witnesses was well founded. THE fact that none of the witnesses had complained against the petitioners in this regard would have no bearing, given the fact that all the accused persons are police officials. THEre seems to be reasonable apprehension that the accused persons were in command and capable of influencing the witnesses, else there would not have been any reason for the witnesses, who have made their statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. supporting the prosecution case, turning hostile in their cross- examinations.