The Supreme Court has issued notice on a plea filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh against the order of Allahabad High Court, which had granted bail to a conman, Prateek Jain, on account of threat to life by Covid-19 pandemic till 2022.
The Supreme Court also stayed the order by which the High Court had held that apprehension of death due to Covid pandemic is a ground for anticipatory bail. The Court has also appointed an amicus in this case.
A two-judge bench of Justices Vineet Saran and B.R. Gavai said, “In case, the respondent/accused not appear before this Court, we shall stay the HC order and cancel anticipatory bail. The larger issue, which was pointed out by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, whereby directions given by the HC with regard to present Covid situation. We appoint an amicus in this court.”
The Top Court said, “As far as the general observations are concerned, the same shall remain stayed and the courts shall not consider the said directions while considering other applications for anticipatory bail and the same shall be dealt on merits of each and every case and not on the basis of observation made in the impugned order.”
“Keeping in view the importance of the issue involved in the present case, we deem it proper to appoint an amicus curiae to assist the Court. Accordingly, we appoint Shri V. Giri, learned senior counsel, as an amicus curiae to assist the Court,” said the Court.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for Uttar Pradesh, submitted that the anticipatory bail was granted to this man against whom 30 cases were registered. High Court has chosen not to go into the merits at all, he added.
The Bench asked, “Is he on bail in other cases? If he is outside then why not bail in this case? We can understand that you have a problem with regard to the observation. Till which date he has been granted.”
SG replied, “Till 3rd January, 2022.”
The Allahabad HC had stated in its order, keeping in view the inadequate medical facilities for treating the large number of persons getting infected day by day, common accused cannot be left unprotected from the threat to his life on account of his arrest by police or surrender before the Court as per the normal procedure applicable to accused persons in normal times.
The High Court had granted anticipatory bail on the following conditions;
“In view of the above facts and circumstances and after finding that the apprehension to life in the current scenario is a ground for grant of anticipatory bail to an accused, this Court hereby directs that the applicant, in case of his arrest, shall be enlarged on anticipatory bail for the limited period, till 3 of January, 2022 on the following conditions:-
1. The applicant shall, at the time of execution of the bond, furnish his address and mobile number and shall not change the residence till the conclusion of investigation/ trial without informing the Investigating Officer of the police/ the Court concerned of change of address and the reasons for the same before changing the same.
2. The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial/investigation by police without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.
3. The applicant shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not play mischeif with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the Investigating Officer of the police;
4. The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court/Investigating Officer forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court/ Investigating Officer till the investigation is completed. In case he has no passport, he will file his affidavit before the Court/ Investigating Officer concerned in this regard.
5. That the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade his from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
6. The applicant shall maintain law and order.
7. The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment before the trial court on the dates fixed for evidence and when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law to ensure presence of the applicant.
8. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98 and the Government Advocate/informant/complainant can file bail cancellation application.
9. The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court, default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of her bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
10. The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
11. The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
12. The applicant is warned not to get himself implicated in any crime and should keep distance from the informant and not to misuse the liberty granted hereby. Any misuse of liberty granted by this Court would be viewed seriously against the applicant in further proceedings.”
The High Court also held that; “This anticipatory bail application is being allowed on account of special conditions and on special ground. The normal grounds, settled for the grant of anticipatory bail, have not been considered by this Court and it would be open for the applicant to approach this Court again, if so adviced, in changed circumstances.”
Read the Supreme Court’s Order;
12199_2021_39_34_28027_Order_25-May-2021