SK. SUPIYAN @ SUFFIYAN @ SUPISAN vs CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

SK. SUPIYAN @ SUFFIYAN @ SUPISAN  vs CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 198 OF 2022
[@ SLP(Crl.)No. 9796 of 2021]
SK. SUPIYAN @ SUFFIYAN @ SUPISAN …… APPELLANT
v.
THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ……RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
Leave granted.
1. The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned Order of the
High Court at Calcutta by which he was denied pre-arrest bail. The
appellant sought pre-arrest bail in connection with First Information
Report (FIR) registered at the Nandigram police station. One
Debabrata Maity sustained injuries on 3rd May 2021 in an alleged
incident of mob attack. He succumbed to injuries on 13th May 2021.
The FIR was registered for the offences punishable under Sections
2
147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 326, and 302 of the Indian Penal Code
(IPC) on 13th May 2021. The appellant was not named in the FIR.
2. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) took over the
investigation of the case on 30th August 2021. Though in September
2021, the appellant was called for investigation by CBI, in the first
charge sheet filed on 5th October 2021, the appellant was not named
as an accused. As the appellant received a notice from CBI to
remain present for investigation, on 25th October 2021, he filed a
petition for seeking anticipatory bail before the High Court. On 27th
October 2021, protection against arrest was granted by the High
Court to the appellant. The appellant was denied anticipatory bail by
the impugned Order dated 29th November 2021. A supplementary
charge sheet was filed on 6th January 2022 in which the appellant
was not named as an accused.
3. This Court by Order dated 28th January 2022, while granting
interim relief, directed the respondent-CBI to produce copies of
statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 164 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘CrPC’) on which the
respondent-CBI was relying upon. Accordingly, copies of the
statements of 18 witnesses recorded under Section 161 of CrPC, as
3
well as copies of 5 witnesses recorded under Section 164 CrPC have
been placed on record.
4. Shri Kapil Sibal, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the appellant pointed out that the appellant was not even named in
the two charge sheets filed by CBI on 5th October 2021 and 6th
January 2022 respectively. He invited our attention to the
statements of witnesses recorded by CBI under Section 164 of
CrPC. He pointed out that the first statement relied upon is of one
Ranjit Maity. The statement was recorded on 7th September 2021 in
which the witness merely stated that he has heard that the appellant
was the main leader of the incident. He pointed out that though the
statement was recorded on 7th September 2021, in both the charge
sheets subsequently filed by CBI, the appellant was not named as an
accused. He pointed out that after the application for grant of
anticipatory bail was filed by the appellant, statement of one Sulekha
Bogri was recorded on 18th November 2021 in which she stated that
the incident happened under the leadership of the appellant. He
submitted that though witness Ranjit Maity deposed that the
appellant was not present at the time of the incident, the version of
Sulekha is to the contrary. He pointed out that the statement under
Section 164 of CrPC of witnesses Manoj Kumar Bera was recorded
4
on 18th November 2021. The statements of Ashish Das and
Bishwajit Panda were belatedly recorded on 24th January 2022. He
pointed out that the said three witnesses are not named in both the
charge sheets as witnesses. He submitted that on the face of it, the
statement of witness Manoj Kumar Bera cannot be believed. The
reason is that for the first time in November 2021, he deposed that
on 3rd May 2021, the appellant and some other persons ransacked
his house and assaulted his mother and wife. He pointed out that
the said witness never complained till 18th November 2021 about the
incident. He also pointed out that the said witness who was at
Village Tarachandbar claims that he heard loud noises from Village
Chillagram which is at a distance of 5 km from village Tarachand
Bask. He pointed out that in the statements belatedly recorded on
24th January 2022, the other two witnesses Ashish Das and Bishwajit
Panda have tried to ascribe a role to the appellant.
5. Shri Sibal urged that CBI tried to implicate the appellant for
political reasons as the appellant was the election agent of the Chief
Minister of West Bengal in the Vidhan Sabha Elections held in 2021.
He submitted that most of the witnesses are workers of the Bharatiya
Janata Party and for obvious political reasons, the appellant is
sought to be falsely implicated. He invited our attention to the media
5
reports about the statements made by one Suvendu Adhikari, who is
a leader of BJP who contested election against the Chief Minister. In
the said statements made by him in October 2021, he stated that the
appellant would be named by the investigating agency and will be
arrested. He pointed out that now the respondent-CBI wants to rely
upon offences registered against the appellant in the year 2007
relating to agitations at Nandigram. He pointed out that the cases of
2007 were withdrawn by the State Government by invoking Section
321 of CrPC. But, the order of withdrawal was stayed by the High
Court of Calcutta. He pointed out that this Court by the Order dated
26th March 2021 has stayed the operation of the order passed by the
High Court of Calcutta on the ground that the High Court did not give
an opportunity of being heard to the appellant. The learned Senior
Counsel by relying upon observations of this Court in the case of
Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Others v. the State of Punjab1
submitted that this is a case where the process of criminal law is tried
to be perverted for achieving extraneous ends and, therefore, the
appellant deserves to be granted pre-arrest bail.
6. Shri Aman Lekhi, the learned Additional Solicitor General of
India urged that this is a case of a serious offence punishable under
Section 302 of IPC and therefore, custodial interrogation of the
1
(1980) 2 SCC 565
6
appellant is necessary. Relying upon statements of the witnesses
recorded under Section 164 of CrPC, he urged that looking into the
seriousness of the allegations, the appellant does not deserve the
protection of pre-arrest bail. He submitted that merely because there
is some delay in recording the statements of the witnesses, the
appellant cannot be protected considering the seriousness of the
offence.
7. Shri P.S. Patwalia, the learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the complainant invited our attention to reasons recorded by the
High Court for denying pre-arrest bail. He submitted that the High
Court has rightly applied well-settled law governing the grant of
anticipatory bail. Accordingly, by considering the gravity of the
offence and material in the form of statements of the witnesses under
Section 164 of CrPC, the relief has been rightly denied to the
appellant.
8. We have considered the submissions. The incident is of 3rd
May 2021. Though two charge sheets have been filed on 5th
October 2021 and 9th January 2022, the appellant has not been
named as an accused therein. Now, the respondent-CBI is relying
upon statements of 5 witnesses recorded under Section 164 of
CrPC. The statements of the first two witnesses were recorded on
7
7
th September 2021 and 11th November 2021 respectively. But the
appellant was not named in both the charge sheets filed thereafter.
Though the statement of Shri Manoj Kumar Bera was recorded on
18th November 2021, he was not cited as a witness in the first two
charge sheets. The statements of the other two witnesses have
been belatedly recorded on 24th January 2022.
9. Considering the peculiar facts of the case, we are of the view
that the appellant deserves to be granted pre-arrest bail. However,
the appellant will have to fully cooperate with the respondent-CBI for
investigation and will have to remain present for investigation as and
when called upon by the investigating officer.
10. Accordingly, the impugned Order is set aside. Pre-arrest bail
is granted to the appellant in connection with Case No. RC
0562021S0032 of CBI arising out of Nandigram PS Case No. 224 of
2021, on the conditions incorporated in clauses (i) to (iii) of subsection (2) of Section 438 CrPC. The appellant shall fully cooperate
for investigation and shall remain present for investigation as and
when called upon by the respondent-CBI. We make it clear that the
pre-arrest bail granted to the appellant is liable to be cancelled if it is
found that the appellant is not cooperating for the investigation. We
8
further make it clear that we have not made any adjudication on the
merits of the controversy.
11. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. All the
pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
 .......……..…………………J
 (L. NAGESWARA RAO)
…………..…………………J
 (ABHAY S. OKA)
New Delhi;
February 09, 2022.

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

संविधान की प्रमुख विशेषताओं का उल्लेख | Characteristics of the Constitution of India

100 Questions on Indian Constitution for UPSC 2020 Pre Exam

भारतीय संविधान से संबंधित 100 महत्वपूर्ण प्रश्न उतर