Supreme Court Disposes of Bail Application Pending Since 2018: Motamarri Appanna Veerraju vs. State of West Bengal (20 February 2020)

Date of the Judgment: 20 February 2020
Citation: Motamarri Appanna Veerraju @ MAV Raju vs. The State of West Bengal (2020) INSC 138
Judges: A.M. Khanwilkar, J. and Dinesh Maheshwari, J.
Can a High Court indefinitely delay a bail application by repeatedly granting interim relief? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this issue, expressing strong disapproval of the High Court’s handling of a bail application that had been pending since August 2018. The Court, in an unusual move, decided to dispose of the main bail application itself, rather than just addressing the modification of the interim order. This case highlights the importance of timely disposal of bail applications and the potential for prejudice caused by prolonged delays. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari.

Case Background

The appellant, Motamarri Appanna Veerraju, was accused of offences under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. An FIR was registered against him in 2018, and a chargesheet and supplementary chargesheet were filed. The Sessions Court rejected his bail application, after which he approached the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta in August 2018. Instead of deciding on the bail application, the High Court granted interim bail on 1 October 2018, and continued the same through successive orders until 23 November 2019. The appellant then sought a modification of the interim order, which was rejected, leading him to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Sessions Court had rejected the bail application of the appellant. Subsequently, the appellant filed a regular bail application before the High Court in August 2018. Instead of disposing of the bail application, the High Court granted interim bail on 1 October 2018, and continued it through successive orders. The appellant then filed an application for modification of the interim order, which was rejected. This led to the appellant’s appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court noted its displeasure about the High Court’s handling of the matter, stating that such a course is “wholly unfathomable and must be eschewed.”

Legal Framework

The case involves offences punishable under Sections 384, 385, 389, 119, 403, 120B, 411, 467, 468, 471, and 409 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d), 13(1)(3) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. These sections pertain to offences such as extortion, criminal conspiracy, breach of trust, forgery, and corruption. The Supreme Court did not delve into the specifics of these provisions, but rather focused on the procedural aspect of the bail application.

Arguments

The arguments of the parties are not explicitly detailed in the judgment. However, the judgment indicates that the appellant sought a modification of the interim order, which was rejected by the High Court. The Supreme Court, instead of addressing the modification, chose to dispose of the main bail application itself. The respondent, the State of West Bengal, likely argued against the grant of bail, considering the seriousness of the charges. However, the Supreme Court noted that the appellant had not violated any of the conditions of the interim bail granted by the High Court.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in the judgment. However, the core issue before the Court was the manner in which the High Court had dealt with the bail application, specifically the repeated granting of interim relief without deciding on the main application.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any specific case laws or books in this judgment. The focus was on the procedural impropriety of the High Court’s handling of the bail application. The Court did, however, refer to the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition of a co-accused, clarifying that this should not prejudice the appellant’s case.

Judgment

The Supreme Court, in its judgment, stated, “We have no hesitation in observing that adopting such a course, that too, by a constitutional Court, is wholly unfathomable and must be eschewed.” The Court noted that the High Court had kept the bail application pending since August 2018 and had only passed interim orders. The Court found this approach unacceptable. The Court also stated, “For, the application for bail or anticipatory bail is a matter of moment for the accused and protracted hearing thereof may also cause prejudice to the investigation and affect the prosecution interests which cannot be comprehended in this order. Such application needs to be dealt with expeditiously and finally, one way or the other and cannot brook delay.”

The Court granted bail to the appellant on the following conditions:

• The appellant shall furnish a bail bond of Rs. 25,00,000 with two sureties of the like amount.
• The appellant shall not travel outside India without prior permission of the Court.
• The appellant shall not enter Paschim Medinipore District except for court proceedings.
• The appellant shall furnish his ordinary place of residence to the Investigating Officer.
• The appellant’s passport shall remain in the custody of CID, West Bengal.
• The appellant shall not intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence and shall appear before the trial court on every date of hearing.
• The appellant shall report to the Investigating Officer on the first Monday of every month.

The Court also stated, “In our opinion, rejection of bail application of the co-accused ought not to come in the way of the appellant herein, who, as aforesaid, was granted interim protection by the High Court vide interim order on 01.10.2018 and which arrangement has been continued till now without any adverse report against him, including of having jumped any condition imposed by the High Court.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with the procedural impropriety of the High Court in repeatedly granting interim bail without deciding the main bail application. The Court emphasized the importance of expeditious disposal of bail applications. The Court also took into account that the appellant had not violated any conditions of the interim bail and that the rejection of bail for a co-accused should not prejudice the appellant’s case.

Key Takeaways

• High Courts should not indefinitely delay bail applications by repeatedly granting interim relief.
• Bail applications should be dealt with expeditiously.
• The rejection of bail for a co-accused should not automatically prejudice the case of another accused.
• The Supreme Court can intervene to ensure that bail applications are handled fairly and promptly.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the bail application filed by the appellant in the High Court be disposed of in terms of the conditions specified in the Supreme Court’s order.

Development of Law

This judgment emphasizes the importance of timely disposal of bail applications and disapproves of the practice of repeatedly granting interim relief without deciding on the main application. The ratio decidendi is that bail applications must be decided expeditiously and cannot be kept pending indefinitely through interim orders.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Motamarri Appanna Veerraju vs. State of West Bengal highlights the need for High Courts to handle bail applications promptly and decisively. The Court’s intervention underscores the importance of ensuring that the rights of the accused are protected and that the judicial process is not unduly delayed. By disposing of the main bail application, the Supreme Court has set a precedent for avoiding prolonged delays in such matters.

Category

Parent Category: Criminal Law
Child Categories: Bail, Interim Bail, Criminal Procedure Code, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 13(1)(c), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 13(1)(d), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 13(1)(3), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 13(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 384, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 385, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 389, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 119, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 403, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 120B, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 411, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 467, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 468, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 471, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 409

FAQ

Q: What was the main issue in this case?
A: The main issue was the High Court’s repeated granting of interim bail without deciding on the main bail application, which had been pending for over a year.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide?
A: The Supreme Court, expressing its displeasure with the High Court’s handling of the matter, disposed of the main bail application and granted bail to the appellant with certain conditions.

Q: What are the key takeaways from this judgment?
A: The key takeaways are that High Courts should not indefinitely delay bail applications, bail applications should be dealt with expeditiously, and the Supreme Court can intervene to ensure that bail applications are handled fairly and promptly.

Q: What does this case mean for people seeking bail?
A: This case emphasizes that courts should decide bail applications promptly and not prolong them through repeated interim orders. It also highlights that if a court has granted interim bail and the accused has not violated the conditions, the court should not refuse bail on the basis of rejection of bail to a co-accused.