Maharashtra Vs. Ramesh Taurani  INSC 861
(26 November 1997)
MUKHERJEE, K.T. THOMAS
26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1997 Present:
Mr. Justice M.K. Mukherjee Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.T. Thomas D.M. Nargolkar, Adv.
for the appellant A.S. Bhasme, Adv. for the Respondents O R D E R The following
under of the Court was delivered:
granted. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
On August 12, 1997 at or about 10.15 A.M. Gulshan
Kumar, a well-known film producer of Mumbai and Chairman of a company dealing
in cassettes, was fatally shot at in the heart of the city. over his death a
case was registered and in connection therewith the respondent, who also
carries on a large scale business in cassettes, was arrested on October 4, 1997
on the allegation that he was a party to the criminal conspiracy that was
hatched up to kill Gulshan Kumar through contract killers. On his production
before a Magistrate, the respondent was initially remanded to the police
custody for a fortnight and thereafter to the judicial custody. His prayer for
ball was rejected by the Magistrate and aggrieved there before moved the High
order dated October 4,
1997 the High Court
granted him bail on condition that he shall not leave the limits of the State
of Maharashtra without informing the police and
without giving the entire itinerary of the programme of his visit. Assailing
the above order, the State of Maharashtra
has filed this appeal for cancellation of the bail granted to the respondent.
this Court does not interfere with orders granting bail but considering the
nature and gravity of the offence alleged against the respondent and the
materials collected against him during investigation, we are of the opinion
that this is a fit case where the order of the High Court has got to be set
aside to prevent mis-carriage of justice.
appears from the impugned order that in granting bail to the respondent the
High Court was much influenced by the fact that in the remand applications that
were presented by the investigating agency in respect of accused persons who
had been earlier arrested connection with the case, the name of the respondent
was nowhere disclosed as a party to the conspiracy. Remand applications are to
be filed by the Investigating Agency to satisfy the Court that there are
justifiable grounds to detain an accused already arrested, in police or
judicial custody. By such applications the Investigating Agency is required to
bring to the notice of the Court the materials collect against an arrested
accused to persuade the Court to remand him to custody for the purpose of
further investigation. To put it negatively, the Investigating Agency is not
required to state in such application the materials, if any, collected against
a person who is yet to be arrested. Such being the limited purpose of a remand
application the non-disclosure of the name of the respondent as a conspirator
(who was not arrested till then) in the remand applications of others arrested
could not - and ought not to - have been made a ground by the High Court for
disbelieving the prosecution case qua the respondent and for that matter,
granting ball to him.
other ground that was canvassed by the High Court was that the only evidence
collected against the respondent was that he handed over an amount of Rs.25 lacs
to the contract killers (who according to the prosecution committed the murder
of Gulshan Kumar). Apart from the fact that in the context of the prosecution
case, the above circumstance incriminates the respondent in a large way we find
that t he Investigating Agency has collected other incriminating materials also
against the respondent, to make out a strong prima facie case against him. It
is trite that among other considerations which the Court has to take into
account in deciding whether bail should be granted in a non- bailable offence
is the nature and gravity of the offence.
therefore of the opinion that the High Court should not have granted bail to
the respondent considering the seriousness of the allegations levelled against
him, particularly at a stage when investigation is continuing.
therefore, set aside the impugned order dated October 23,1997 and cancel the bail granted to the respondent. The
respondent is directed to surrender before the Magistrate concerned on or
before December 3, 1997 and on such surrender the
Magistrate shall take him into judicial custody. In case the respondent does
not comply with the above direction of ours, the Magistrate shall take
appropriate legal steps for his apprehension and remand to judicial custody.
appeal is, thus, allowed without prejudice to the right of the respondent to
pray for bail before the appropriate forum and at the appropriate stage. If and
when such a prayer is made, the Court concerned will Consider the same without
in any way being inhibited by the observation of the High Court in the impugned
order and of this Court in the present order.