Supreme Court Grants Interim Bail to Lady Accused in Corruption Case: Menon Ekka vs. Union of India (2022)

Date of the Judgment: 14 October 2022
Citation: 2022 INSC 900
Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Krishna Murari.

Can a convicted woman, who has already served a significant portion of her sentence, be granted interim bail while her appeal is pending? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case, focusing on the balance between individual liberty and the severity of the charges. The court considered the fact that the appellant was a woman and had already served a substantial part of her sentence. The bench consisted of Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Krishna Murari, with the judgment authored by Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah.

Case Background

The appellant, Menon Ekka, along with her husband, was convicted for offenses under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for possessing disproportionate assets. She was sentenced to 7 years of rigorous imprisonment (RI). By the time of this appeal, she had already served 2 years and 9 months of her sentence. The appellant sought interim bail while her appeal against the conviction was pending before the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi had refused to release the appellant on interim bail. The High Court stated that it was ready to hear the appeals, but the appellant and other co-accused were not prepared. The High Court, considering the seriousness of the charges and the evidence, did not suspend the sentence or grant bail.

Legal Framework

The case involves the following legal provisions:

• Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with the punishment of abetment if the act abetted is committed in consequence and where no express provision is made for its punishment.
• Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: This section pertains to criminal misconduct by a public servant, specifically relating to possession of assets disproportionate to known sources of income.
• Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: This section specifies the punishment for offenses under Section 13(1), which includes imprisonment and fine.

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellant:

• The appellant’s counsel argued that she had already served 2 years and 9 months of her 7-year sentence.
• The appellant is a woman, which should be a factor in considering her plea for interim bail.
• The appeals were not likely to be heard in the near future, warranting the grant of interim bail.

Arguments by the Respondent:

• The High Court was ready to hear the appeals, but the appellant and other co-accused were not prepared.
• The charges against the appellant were serious, and the evidence against her was substantial.
• The High Court had rightly refused to suspend the sentence and grant bail.

[TABLE] of Arguments by Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the appellant should be granted interim bail during the pendency of her appeal before the High Court, considering she is a woman and has served a substantial portion of her sentence.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not explicitly cite any specific cases or books in its judgment. However, it considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Relating to abetment.
• Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: Relating to possession of disproportionate assets.
• Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: Relating to punishment for offenses under Section 13(1).

[TABLE] of Authorities Considered by the Court

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court considered the legal provisions under which the appellant was convicted, namely Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Section 13(1)(e) and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as the basis for the conviction. However, the court did not delve into the interpretation of these sections but rather focused on the circumstances of the appellant, specifically that she was a woman and had served a significant portion of her sentence. The court used these facts as the primary reasons for granting interim bail.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to grant interim bail was primarily influenced by the fact that the appellant was a woman and had already served a substantial portion of her sentence (2 years and 9 months out of 7 years). The court also considered the delay in the hearing of the appeal at the High Court. The court balanced the seriousness of the charges with the personal liberty of the appellant.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court

Fact:Law Ratio Table

Logical Reasoning

The Court did not discuss any alternative interpretations or reject any specific legal arguments, but it emphasized the circumstances of the appellant and the need for expeditious disposal of the appeal. The decision was based on the specific facts of the case, with the court stating that “solely on the ground that the appellant is a lady accused and has already undergone 2 years and 9 months sentence, present appeal is allowed.” The court further clarified that “the benefit of the present order may not be available to the other co-accused persons and the present order may not be cited as a precedent so far as the other co-accused persons are concerned.” The court also directed the High Court to dispose of the appeals within six months, stating that “we request the High Court to finally decide and dispose of the said appeals at the earliest but not later than six months from the first listing before the concerned court.”

Key Takeaways

• Interim bail can be granted to a convicted person, especially a woman, who has served a significant portion of their sentence, pending the hearing of their appeal.
• The courts may consider the gender of the accused as a factor in granting interim bail.
• The courts may direct the lower courts to expedite the hearing of appeals to avoid prolonged incarceration.
• The present order may not be cited as a precedent for other co-accused persons.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the Registry of the High Court to notify the Criminal Appeals (No. 326 of 2020 to No. 328 of 2020) before the appropriate bench within two weeks. The High Court was further directed to dispose of the appeals within six months from the first listing before the concerned court. All parties were directed to cooperate in the earlier disposal of the appeals.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that interim bail can be granted to a woman who has served a substantial part of her sentence, pending appeal, and this order is specific to the facts of the case and should not be treated as a precedent for other co-accused. This case highlights the court’s consideration of personal liberty and the need for speedy disposal of appeals, particularly in cases involving women.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court granted interim bail to Menon Ekka, a woman convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, considering that she had already served a substantial portion of her sentence and her appeal was pending. The court also directed the High Court to expedite the hearing of the appeals. The decision underscores the court’s emphasis on personal liberty and the need for timely justice.