SANJIVANI BALVANT SALASKAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr. J. A. Shelat, the learned A.P.P. waives service of the Rule. Earlier, on 14-12-1995, when this matter came up for admission before us, notice was issued to the respondents making it returnable on 16-12-1995 with the following observations :

(2.) Sanjivani Salasker by this Misc. Criminal Application under Sec. 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has moved this Court inter alia praying for temporary bail to her husband Balvant @ Shyam Salasker undergoing life imprisonment at the central prison, Vadodara, precisely on two grounds, viz., (i) to perform the "VARSI" ceremony of her mother-in-law, and (ii) to find out suitable match for her daughter who is of marriageable age. In support of this, she has relied upon two certificates both dated 6-12-1995, issued by (1) Mr. Bhupendra Lakhawala, M.L.A. from Vadodara City, and (2) Mr. Yogendra Sukhadia, Chairman, Standing Committee, Vadodara Municipal Corporation. It appears that Balvant @ Shyam Salasker is one of the convict-prisoners alongwith 17 other accused who came to be convicted for the alleged offences punishable under Secs. 302, 324, 147, 148, 149, 34, 120-B of I. P. Code, Sec. 135 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, Sec. 25(1)(A) of the Arms Act, and Secs. 3 and 5 of TADA Act, and sentenced to R. I. for life for committing murder of Dinesh Ramanlal Pathak, Editor of "Sandesh" (Gujarati Daily) published from Vadodara, by the judgment and order dated 31- 3-1995 rendered in Sessions Case No. 171 of 1994 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Vadodara.

(3.) Now, whether to release a prisoner on temporary bail/parole or not is entirely a matter, in the first instance, within the judicial discretion of the Court, and in the second instance, the discretion of the competent authorities under the relevant statutory provisions, which is required to be exercised strictly only on the basis of the well established norms such as (i) antecedents of accused, (ii) police report, (iii) remarks sheet of the convict-prisoner submitted by the jail authorities regarding his jail conduct, (iv) overall background of the case reflecting gravity and seriousness of the offence in which murder/other offences took place and (v) the ultimate overall submissions based thereupon made by the learned A.P.P. in-charge of the case. This is the only ordinary permissible legal compass within which the Court/authority exercises its discretion whether the prisoner should be released on temporary bail/ parole or not. Under the circumstances, we are simply stunned, surprised and shocked to note that of all, none other than the sitting M.L.A. of the State and the Chairman of the Standing Committee, Vadodara Municipal Corporation have dared recommending us for releasing a notorious criminal Balvant Salasker on parole/bail, which as parole is not available in criminal appeals pending before the Court, the petitioner has pressed into service for getting temporary bail, and thereby indirectly ventured and tried to influence the discretion of this Court. This illegal, irresponsible, unbecoming practice and that too at the hands of the elected representatives of people is highly reprehensible as it is simply unthinkable that any right-minded politician would ever do, even think even. No responsible, right thinking citizen more so any elected representative of the people, be it M.P., M.L.A., Corporator or Councillor would ever imagine even of doing something to influence the Court and that too, in favour of the criminal which is against the public interest. This Court has come across several such cases in the past where, even the State Minister, while granting parole on the basis of the recommendation of M.L.A.s and M.P.s have been criticised and cautioned without any reservation. It appears that the message of the Court in the decision rendered firstly in the case Hasmukh D. Prajapati v. State of Gujarat, reported in 1995(1) GLR 727 (in particular at page 732 - Para 47) and secondly, in the case of Lilavatiben Daulatsinh v. State of Gujarat, decided on 25-8-1995 (Special C. A. No. 779 of 1994) has still not percolated further to reach the M.L.As. Corporators, etc. In the instant case, the concerned M.L.A. and the Chairman of the Standing Committee, ought not have been oblivious of the fact that the convictprisoner is involved in a very sensational murder case, where Dinesh Ramanlal Pathak, Editor of "Sandesh" was murdered. We take it, though it is indeed too difficult, that perhaps the concerned M.L.A. and the Chairman of the Standing Committee were not aware of this fact, that the prisoner was involved in one of serious sensational cases of political murder, else they would not have dared to influence the Court and concerned statutory authority by giving the certificates in question . Further, so far as the certificate issued by Mr. Bhupendra Lakhawala is concerned, it is in a printed form, which creates serious doubt as to in what manner, perhaps he is trying to influence other authorities also in a similar way. We warn all such concerned irresponsibles to please stop now and here, else be ready for the consequences that may fall upon them when found indulging in some such illegal practices, as found in the instant case. Any such wilful attempts to influence the discretion of Court is undoubtedly interfering with the Administration of justice, and can be treated as Contempt of the Court. To recommend release of any criminals by concerned M.L.A. or Corporator or thereby by any elected representative of the people either on temporary bail or parole, to any Court or the competent authorities is not only, not the field and subject-matter of their public-service but the same is outright illegal and contemptuous interference with Administration of justice in particular the judicial proceedings of the concerned Court.