SATISH JAGGIversusSTATE OF CHATTISGARH & ORS.

                                   SA TISH JAGGI                                  A
)                                        v.
                          STATE OF CHATTISGARH & ORS.

                                  APRIL 30, 2007

                    [H.K. SEMA AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.)                    B


            Bail:

          Granting of bail-Consideration for-Held, primary consideration is
    gravity and nature of offence-Court can only go into question of Prima C
    facie case established for granting bail-It cannot go into the question of
    credibility and reliability of witnesses put up by prosecution-In instant
    case, the High Court, while granting bail to the accused charged of murdering
    a rival political leader while campaigning in the election, in the election,
    did not at all consider the nature and gravity of the offence and its impact D
    on the democratic fabric of the society-The observations and findings
    recorded by High Court on credibility and evidentiary value of witnesses
    virtually amounts to regular trial-Such findings cannot be allowed to
    sustain-Order granting bail set aside.

            CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 651 of E
    2007.

          From the Final Judgment and Order dated 03.05.2006 of the High of
    Judicature ofChattisgarh at Bilaspur in Misc. Criminal Case No. 850 of2006.

          A.K. Ganguly, C.D. Singh, Merusagar Samantaray and Vairagya Vardhan F
    for the Appellant.

         Rajiv Dutta and Vivek Tankha, Atul Jha, Dhannendra Kumar Sinha,
    Rahul Shanna, Siddharth Gupta and P.N. Puri for the Respondents.

         Amarendra Sharan, ASG., Amit Anand Tiwari and P. Panneswaran for G
    the CBI.

            The Order of the Court was delivered by


                                        1049                                      H
     1050                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     (2007] 5 S.C.R.

A                                            ORDER

            Leave granted.

          Respondent No.3 is an accused under Section 302/1208 !PC. His bail
    application was rejected by the trial Court. The same was confirmed by the
B   High Court. Criminal Appeal No. 1630/2005 filed by him was also rejected by
    this Court by an order dated 05/12/2005.

        It appears that his subsequent application for bail filed before the trial
  Court was also unsuccessful. Aggrieved thereby, he filed Misc. Criminal Case
  No.850/2006 before the Hon'ble S.R. Nayak, Chief Justice of Chhattisgarh
C High Court at Bilaspur (as His Lordship then was). By an impugned order
  dated 03/05/2006, the Chief Justice of the High Court granted bail to the
  respondent-accused on his executing a bond in a sum of Rupees One Lakh
  with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

            For the purpose of disposal of this case, it may not be necessary to
D recite the entire facts leading to the filing of this appeal. Suffice it to say that
    as many as 27 material prosecution witnesses have now turned hostile.

           It is settled law that in granting or non-granting of bail in non-bailable
    offence, the primary consideration is the nature and gravity of the offence.
E   In the present case the respondent No.3 is accused of murdering a rival
    political leader while campaigning in the election.

          It appears that learned Chief Justice did not consider the nature and the
    gravity of the offence while considering the bail application of the accused.
    On the contrary, while considering for bail, the learned Chief Justice appears
F   to have decided the case pending trial on merit after scrutinising the evidence.
    To say the least, it is against all canons of law and judicial propriety.

         In paragraph 19 of its order, the learned Chief Justice recorded that
  among the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution to prove the
  charge of criminal conspiracy against the accused, PW-97 and PW-100 have
G categorically denied that they were present in the meeting alleged to have
  held on 21/05/2003 at the Hotel Green Park. He has also observed that PW-
  126 has stated that hews not at all in Raipur on 21/05/2003. He says that only
  isolated evidence in support of the charge is that of PW-85 but it was
  suggested that his testimony is unreliable not only in view of the evidence
H of PW-73 but also for the reason that PW-85 has a motive to falsely involve
                     SATISHJAGG!v. STATEOFCHAITISGARH                        1051
    the accused in the commission of the offence.                                     A
j
          Learned Chief Justice has further noted in paragraph 20 that the evidence
    so far adduced by the prosecution does not appear to prove the case of the
    prosecution that Ram Avtar Jaggi was murdered by Chiman Singh in pursuance
    of a conspiracy hatched in the meeting held on 21/05/2003 at the Hotel Green
    Park, Raipur. He further goes on to state that the two eye-witnesses, namely,     B
    Abdul Jameel Khan and Banke Bihari, who were examined to prove the above
    charge have turned hostile in Court. He further observed that the conspiracy
    theory propounded by the prosecution against the accused stands shattered.

           In paragraph 21 of the judgment, he further observed that from the
     quality of the evidence so far adduced by the prosecution to prove the charge    C
    of criminal conspiracy in the murder of Ram Avtar Jaggi by Chiman Singh in
     pursuance of that criminal conspiracy, it cannot be said that there is a prima
    facie evidence against the applicant-ac.:used to prove his involvement in the
    alleged crime.
                                                                                      D
          In paragraph 24 of his judgment, the learned Chief Justice observed that
    only evidence of PW-85 regarding criminal conspiracy attributed to the accused
    is suspicious and tenous and the same stands contradicted by the evidence
1   of the witnesses PW-126 and PW-73. He further observed that there is no
    corroboration to the testimony of PW-85.
                                                                                      E
           On the aforesaid reasoning, the learned Chief Justice thought it fit to
    grant bail. Mr. A.K. Ganguly, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of
    the appellant-complainant, Mr. Amarendra Sharan, learned ASG appearing on
    behalf of the CBI and Mr. Raj iv Datta, learned senior counsel appearing on
    behalf of the State of Chhattisgarh strenuously contented that having regard
    to the observations and findings of the learned Chief Justice as recorded F
    above, it clearly show that the learned Chief Justice while granting bail to the
    accused virtually decided the case on merit which amounts to acquitting the
    accused of the criminal charge levelled against him without trial. Per contra,
    Mr. Vivek Tankha, learned senior counsel contended that now evidence is
    closed so there is no question of accused tampering with the prosecution G
    witnesses or fleeing from justice. He further contended that now the arguments
    in the case has finally started and the arguments of the prosecution are over
    and only the defence is to give its reply. He, accordingly, contended that the
    bail granted by the learned Chief Justice need not be disturbed.

         Normally in the offence of non-bailable also, bail can be granted if the H
    1052                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2007] 5 S.C.R.

A facts and circumstances so demand. We have already observed that in granting        i_
  bail in non-bailable offence, the primary consideration is the gravity and the
  nature of the offence. A reading of the order of the learned Chief Justice
  shows that the nature and the gravity of the offence and its impact on the
  democratic fabric of the society was not at all considered. We are more
  concerned with the observations and findings recorded by the learned Chief
B Justice on the credibility and the evidential value of the witnesses at the stage
  of granting bail. By making such observations and findings, the learned Chief
   Justice has virtually acquitted the accused of all the criminal charges levelled
  against him even before the trial. The trial is in progress and if such findings    r
  are allowed to stand it would seriously prejudice the prosecution case. At the
C stage of granting of bail, the Court can only go into the question of the prima
  facie case established for granting bail. It cannot go into the question of
  credibility and reliability of the witnesses put up by the prosecution. The
  question of credibility and reliability of prosecution witnesses can only be
   tested during the trial.

D         In the present case, the findings recorded by the learned Chief Justice,
    as referred to above, virtually amounts to the regular trial pointing out the
    deficiency and reliability/credibility of prosecution evidence. Such findings
    recorded at the stage of consideration of bail, in our view, cannot be allowed
    to sustain.
E         For the reasons aforestated, the order of the learned Chief Justice
    granting the bail is not sustainable in law. It is, accordingly, set aside. The
    bail bonds and sureties of the respondent No.3 stand cancelled. He is directed
    to be taken back to the custody forthwith.

           The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
F
          We clarify that we are not making any observations on the merit of the
    case or on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses.

    RP.                                                      Appeal disposed of.