STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusRAMESH TAURANI

                     STATE OF MAHARASHTRA                                   A
                                    v.
                          RAMESH TAURANI

                         NOVEMEBER 26, 1997

             [M.K. MUKHERJEE AND K.T. THOMAS, JJ.]                          B


      Code of Criminal Procedure 1973: Sections .437 & 439.

       Bail-Principle for grant of-Murder-Respondent arrested on the
ground that he was party to the criminal conspiracy-Allegation that he C
paid money to the contract killers-Respondent arrested and remanded to ~
judicial custody-His prayer for bail rejected by the Magistrate-Bail granted
 by High Court-High Court 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 in connection with the case, D
 the name of the respondent was nowhere disclosed as a party to -the
 conspiracy-Other factor taken into account by High Couri was that the
 only evidence collected against the accused was that he paid money to the
 killers-Appeal preferred by State for cancellation of bail-Held, investigating
 agency has made out a strong prime facie case against the respondent-
 accused-lnvestigating agency is not required to state in remand application E
 the materials, if any, collected against a person who is yet to be arrested--
 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 prosec]Jtion case qua the respondent and for that matter, F
granting bail to him-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-Bail order
passed by High Court set aside.
      Investigation-Remand applications filed during-Object and purpose G
of
      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. I I 12
of 1987.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 23.10.97 of the Bombay High Court
in Cr!. Application No. 3101 of1997.                                        H
                                   463
    464                       SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A         D.M. Nargolkar for the Appellant.

          A.S. Bhasme for the Respondent.

          The following Order of the Court was delivered :

B         Leave 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
C 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 intially remanded to the custody for a
    fortnight and thereafter to the judicial eustody. His paryer for bail was rejected
D by the Magistrate and aggrieved thereby he moved the High Court. By its
   order dated October 23, 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.
E
         Normally, 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, Wj:)
    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.
F
          It 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 in connection with the case, the name of the
G   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 collected against an
    arrested 'accused to persuade the Court to remand him to custody for the
H   purpose of further investigation. To put it negatively, the investigating agency
                        STATE v. RAMESH TAU RANI                           465
 is not required to state in such application the materials, if any, collected    A
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       B
that matter, granting bail to him.

      The 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 J(umar). Apart from the fact that in the C
context of the prosecution case, the above circumstance incriminates the
respondent in a large way we find that the 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. We D
are 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.

      We, therefore, set aside the impugned order dated October 23, 1997 and
cancel the bail granted to the respondent. The respondent is directed to          E
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.                                                              F
      The 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.               G
T.N.A.                                                        Appeal allowed.