Nath Singh Vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav & ANR.  INSC 600 (3 May
NATH SINGH v. RAJESH RANJAN @ PAPPU YADAV & ANR.
Appeal Nos. 959 of 2010) etc.
2010 [Markandey Katju and A.K. Patnaik, JJ.] 2010 (5) SCR 1156 the following
Order of the Court was delivered
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Leave granted in both the petitions.
These appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment and
order dated 18.02.2009 of the High Court of Judicature at Patna whereby the
respondent Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav has been granted bail in Sessions Trial
No. 976 of 1999.
Learned counsel for respondent-accused handed over to us a letter
dated 1.5.2010 written by the respondent-accused to his counsel wherein it is
stated that the present case should be heard by a Bench of which one of
(Markandey Katju, J.) is not a member. The said letter is taken on record.
Having perused the letter, we were inclined to issue notice for
contempt of Court against respondent-accused for sending such a letter but we
have restrained ourselves although it is clear that the conduct of the
respondent-accused is contemptuous. We make it clear that this court will not
tolerate the tactics of Bench hopping by an accused or any other person.
We have considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case
and also noted the fact that earlier two bail applications of the
respondent-accused have been rejected. Apart from that, in the case of this
very accused. reported as Rajesh Ranjan has observed in para 24 as under.
On the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no merit in this appeal.
appeal is accordingly dismissed. We, however, make it clear that no further
application for bail will be considered in this case by any court, as already a
large number of bail applications have been rejected earlier, both by the High
Court and this Court."
We are surprised that despite the aforesaid clear direction of
this court, the High Court has granted bail to the respondent-accused. In fact,
such an order of the High Court amounts to contempt of order of this Court
since this Court has observed that no further bail application of the accused
shall be entertained.
Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the aforesaid
decision was given rejecting bail pending the trial, whereas now bail was
applied in appeal after conviction by the Trial Court. In our opinion, when it
was not found a fit cased for bail before conviction, it is even less a fit
case for bail after conviction.
There are very serious allegations against the respondent but we
are not going into the same here because we do not wish to prejudice the
appellate court. However, we do wish to express our regret that bail was
granted by the High Court for no good reason except by saying that the appeal
is not likely to be heard in six months. If bail is granted on such a ground
then bail will have to be granted in almost every case, even when the offence
is heinous. We cannot approve of such a view.
For the reasons given, we set aside the impugned judgment and
order dated 18.02.2009 and allow these appeals. It is directed that the
respondent-accused Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav shall be taken into custody