Calcutta High Court granting bail to the sole respondent (Sandeep Singh alias Rinku), coaccused arising out of the same FIR. Lastly, Special Leave Petition (Crl.)No. 5192 of 2023 has been filed by State-Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands assailing the order dated 22nd February, 2023 granting bail to sole respondent (Rishishwar Lal Rishi) another co-accused from the same FIR. The orders dated 22nd February, 2023 are primarily based on the ground of parity as bail has been granted to the alleged main accused Jitendra Narain on 20th February 2023. (Para 1)
On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused have pointed out the various inconsistencies, contradictions and deficiencies in investigation and the evidence collected to show the falsehood of the prosecution case. (Para 7)
As indicated hereinafter, and subject to what follows, but for entirely different reasons, we are in agreement with the ultimate view of the High Court. In this scenario, we consciously refrain from commenting upon the contentions put forth by learned counsel on both sides on the alleged inconsistencies, contradictions and/or deficiencies in the other side’s case. (Para 8)
Having considered the matter and the applicable law, this Court notes that the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta (Circuit Bench, Port Blair) dated 20.02.2023 in CRM (DB)/1/2023 has neither dealt with the real issue, nor indicated reasons which are germane and, in our view, required consideration concerning the grant or rejection of bail. (Para 11)
Rather, the High Court examined issues, which ought not to have been the primary factors when considering the prayer for bail of respondent no. 2, especially what is recorded in the first two paragraphs at Page 4 of the Impugned Judgment. This could have entailed remand to the High Court for a discussion, even if short, on the merits of granting bail in the present facts and circumstances. However, we have independently considered the matter on merits after hearing learned counsel in extenso. Having done so, we do not find reason to interfere with the Impugned Judgments. At the same time, the interest of justice must be preserved. In this light, we impose the following conditions in addition to those laid down by the High Court: (Para 12)
The Petitioner fears for her and her family’s safety. It is made clear that the onus of ensuring their safety is on the Union Territory Administration. Similarly, the Union Territory Police is put to notice in this regard. Insofar as the Petitioner claims that the Director-General of Police has not acted on her subsequent complaints seeking registration of First Information Reports against certain other persons, the Director-General is directed to examine the same and take an independent decision on what action, if any, is called for, in accordance with law, within ten days from today. In these peculiar facts, we grant liberty to the parties to apply in case of difficulty. (Para 13)
In view of the above discussion, the Special Leave Petitions fail and are hereby dismissed. (Para 14)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2023 STPL(Web) 212 SC
[2023 INSC 767]
Xxx Vs. Union Territory Of Andaman & Nicobar Islands & Anr.
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 3482 of 2023 With Special Leave Petition (Crl.)No.5192 of 2023 With Special Leave Petition (Crl.)No.5131 of 2023 And With Special Leave Petition (Crl.)No.5099 of 2023-Decided on 24-8-2023
https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/2023-STPLWeb-212-SC.pdf
