NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday granted bail to five 2G scam
case accused-Unitech's Sanjay Chandra, Swan Telecom's Vinod Goenka and
Reliance ADAG executives Gautam Doshi, Surendra Pipara and Hari
Nair-raising hopes for the release of other accused and resurrecting the
principle that bail should be the rule and jail an exception.
The verdict of Justices G S Singhvi and H L Dattu, which invoked the constitutional principle of "presumption of innocence", marks the first time in nine months since the CBI took the case to the trial court that any of the accused has been released on bail.
The SC bench faulted the trial court and the Delhi High Court for turning down bail pleas of the accused, saying that it saw little merit in keeping the accused behind bars after investigations had been completed and chargesheet filed. Observing that trial in the case was not going to be over shortly, Justices Singhvi and Dattu said the accused could not be kept behind bars indefinitely.
They rejected the CBI's argument that the accused could tamper with evidence by noting that the agency had not backed up its charge. It also brushed aside the argument that the accused should remain in jail because of the enormity of their alleged crime, contending the constitutional rights of the accused and the quantum of punishment that they might get in case of conviction should not be lost sight of. The bench also stressed that the accused could not be denied bail because the community's sentiment was against them.
Encouraged by the judgment, which is expected to set the "direction" of how judiciary deals with bail petitions of other accused, DMK MP Kanimozhi, former telecom secretary Siddhartha Behura, Bollywood producer Karim Morani, Kalaignar TV MD Sharad Kumar and two other accused-Asif Balwa and Rajeev Agarwal-successfully approached the Delhi HC to fast track hearings on their pleas.
The HC, which was scheduled to hear their bail pleas on December 1, has agreed to take those up on Thursday.
Making an appeal to Justice V K Shali that her bail petition be heard earlier, Kanimozhi cited the SC order to argue that keeping her in jail for more days would be a violation of her fundamental rights.
Five others whose bail applications will be decided by the HC on Thursday said charges against them were milder than the ones on those who got relief from the SC on Wednesday.
Former telecom minister A Raja and Swan Telecom's Shahid Balwa are among the nine accused who are still in jail. Raja has so for not applied for bail, and speculation was rife after the SC order that he might take a fresh look at his options.
Raja's former aide R K Chandolia is the other accused still in jail.
The Supreme Court underlined that while every accused had a right to speedy trial, it was an unlikely prospect in the 2G scam case. "Statement of witnesses runs into several hundred pages and the documents on which reliance is placed by the prosecution is voluminous. The trial may take considerable time and it looks to us that the appellants who are in jail have to remain in jail longer than the period of detention had they been convicted." It further said, "It is not in the interest of justice that accused should remain in jail for an indefinite period."
The 63-page order, authored by Justice Dattu for the bench, stressed the primacy of the "bail is rule, jail an exception, "principle laid down by the Supreme Court in 1978, warning that discarding it could lead to chaotic situations, jeopardizing the personal liberty of an individual".
Criticizing the order of the trial court and the Delhi HC denying bail to the accused, the SC bench said, "The reasoning adopted by the district judge, which is affirmed by the high court, in our opinion is a denial of the whole basis of our system of law and normal rule of bail system."
The bench further said, "The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after the conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty."
Addressing the argument cited by the trial court that the accused could intimidate witnesses if released on bail, the bench said, "In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances."
The apex court also addressed the argument that the case was on a different footing because of the dimension of the 2G scam. The bench said it was aware of the magnitude of the alleged crime of the accused and that it, if the charge is true, could have jeopardized the country's economy. However, it said the accused could not be denied bail because of the sentiment of the community against them. It also said courts were required to balance the severity of charges against constitutional rights of the accused.
The bench asked the five to furnish bail bonds of Rs 5 lakh accompanied by two sureties each and imposed following conditions-do not threaten, coerce or lure any witness to retract from statements before trial court, remain present during trial and surrender passports to the trial court. It also gave the CBI liberty to seek cancellation of their bail if any of the accused violated these conditions.
Soon after the judgment, both Unitech Ltd and its top executive Sanjay Chandra came out with statements welcoming the judgment and reiterating Chandra's innocence. Chandra said, "I reiterate that I am committed to cooperating in the trial and hope that finally justice will be done and my innocence proved."
Times View
The Supreme Court has done the right thing by reiterating the principle that bail is the default option and jail the exception rather than the other way around. In this case, the charges have been filed. As investigations are over, unless there are compelling reasons, there is no case to hold the other 2G accused in jail. The right to bail applies not just to cases where the accused are high-profile, but also to ordinary people. After all, imprisonment is an infringe- ment on an individual's liberty and must not be imposed on anyone without sufficient reason.
The verdict of Justices G S Singhvi and H L Dattu, which invoked the constitutional principle of "presumption of innocence", marks the first time in nine months since the CBI took the case to the trial court that any of the accused has been released on bail.
The SC bench faulted the trial court and the Delhi High Court for turning down bail pleas of the accused, saying that it saw little merit in keeping the accused behind bars after investigations had been completed and chargesheet filed. Observing that trial in the case was not going to be over shortly, Justices Singhvi and Dattu said the accused could not be kept behind bars indefinitely.
They rejected the CBI's argument that the accused could tamper with evidence by noting that the agency had not backed up its charge. It also brushed aside the argument that the accused should remain in jail because of the enormity of their alleged crime, contending the constitutional rights of the accused and the quantum of punishment that they might get in case of conviction should not be lost sight of. The bench also stressed that the accused could not be denied bail because the community's sentiment was against them.
Encouraged by the judgment, which is expected to set the "direction" of how judiciary deals with bail petitions of other accused, DMK MP Kanimozhi, former telecom secretary Siddhartha Behura, Bollywood producer Karim Morani, Kalaignar TV MD Sharad Kumar and two other accused-Asif Balwa and Rajeev Agarwal-successfully approached the Delhi HC to fast track hearings on their pleas.
The HC, which was scheduled to hear their bail pleas on December 1, has agreed to take those up on Thursday.
Making an appeal to Justice V K Shali that her bail petition be heard earlier, Kanimozhi cited the SC order to argue that keeping her in jail for more days would be a violation of her fundamental rights.
Five others whose bail applications will be decided by the HC on Thursday said charges against them were milder than the ones on those who got relief from the SC on Wednesday.
Former telecom minister A Raja and Swan Telecom's Shahid Balwa are among the nine accused who are still in jail. Raja has so for not applied for bail, and speculation was rife after the SC order that he might take a fresh look at his options.
Raja's former aide R K Chandolia is the other accused still in jail.
The Supreme Court underlined that while every accused had a right to speedy trial, it was an unlikely prospect in the 2G scam case. "Statement of witnesses runs into several hundred pages and the documents on which reliance is placed by the prosecution is voluminous. The trial may take considerable time and it looks to us that the appellants who are in jail have to remain in jail longer than the period of detention had they been convicted." It further said, "It is not in the interest of justice that accused should remain in jail for an indefinite period."
The 63-page order, authored by Justice Dattu for the bench, stressed the primacy of the "bail is rule, jail an exception, "principle laid down by the Supreme Court in 1978, warning that discarding it could lead to chaotic situations, jeopardizing the personal liberty of an individual".
Criticizing the order of the trial court and the Delhi HC denying bail to the accused, the SC bench said, "The reasoning adopted by the district judge, which is affirmed by the high court, in our opinion is a denial of the whole basis of our system of law and normal rule of bail system."
The bench further said, "The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after the conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty."
Addressing the argument cited by the trial court that the accused could intimidate witnesses if released on bail, the bench said, "In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances."
The apex court also addressed the argument that the case was on a different footing because of the dimension of the 2G scam. The bench said it was aware of the magnitude of the alleged crime of the accused and that it, if the charge is true, could have jeopardized the country's economy. However, it said the accused could not be denied bail because of the sentiment of the community against them. It also said courts were required to balance the severity of charges against constitutional rights of the accused.
The bench asked the five to furnish bail bonds of Rs 5 lakh accompanied by two sureties each and imposed following conditions-do not threaten, coerce or lure any witness to retract from statements before trial court, remain present during trial and surrender passports to the trial court. It also gave the CBI liberty to seek cancellation of their bail if any of the accused violated these conditions.
Soon after the judgment, both Unitech Ltd and its top executive Sanjay Chandra came out with statements welcoming the judgment and reiterating Chandra's innocence. Chandra said, "I reiterate that I am committed to cooperating in the trial and hope that finally justice will be done and my innocence proved."
Times View
The Supreme Court has done the right thing by reiterating the principle that bail is the default option and jail the exception rather than the other way around. In this case, the charges have been filed. As investigations are over, unless there are compelling reasons, there is no case to hold the other 2G accused in jail. The right to bail applies not just to cases where the accused are high-profile, but also to ordinary people. After all, imprisonment is an infringe- ment on an individual's liberty and must not be imposed on anyone without sufficient reason.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for your comment