4. The facts in the present matter are not in dispute.
5. A judgment came to be delivered by this Court, on 24th June 2022, in the case of Zakia Ahsan Jafri v. State of Gujarat and another [2022 (9) SCALE 385], wherein at paragraph 88, this Court observed thus:-
“88. While parting, we express our appreciation for the indefatigable work done by the team of SIT officials in the challenging circumstances they had to face and yet, we find that they have come out with flying colours unscathed. At the end of the day, it appears to us that a coalesced effort of the disgruntled officials of the State of Gujarat alongwith others was to create sensation by making revelations which were false to their own knowledge. The falsity of their claims had been fully exposed by the SIT after a thorough investigation. Intriguingly, the present proceedings have been pursued for last 16 years (from submission of complaint dated 8.6.2006 running into 67 pages and then by filing protest petition dated 15.4.2013 running into 514 pages) including with the audacity to question the integrity of every functionary involved in the process of exposing the devious stratagem adopted (to borrow the submission of learned counsel for the SIT), to keep the pot boiling, obviously, for ulterior design. As a matter of fact, all those involved in such abuse of process, need to be in the dock and proceeded with in accordance with law.”
xxx
22. As held by this Court in a catena of cases right from Niranjan Singh and Another v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and Others [(1980) 2 SCC 559 8], a detailed elaboration of evidence at the stage of bail has to be avoided. This is neither in the interest of the prosecution nor the accused. As such, we would be avoiding any detailed elaboration of evidence at this stage.
23. The order passed by the learned Judge, running into more than a hundred pages, makes for an interesting reading. On one hand, the learned Judge has spent pages after pages to observe as to how it is not necessary, rather not permissible at the stage of consideration of grant of bail to consider as to whether a prima facie case is made out or not.
24. Having made the aforesaid observation on the one hand, the learned Judge, on the other hand, goes on to discuss the statements of some witnesses and observes that a prima facie case under Section 194 IPC is made out. The findings are totally contrary, to say the least.
25. The learned Judge has further observed that since the appellant, after filing of an FIR and filing of a charge-sheet, has neither challenged the same in a proceeding under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.” for short) or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court or under Article 32 of the Constitution of India before this Court, it is not permissible for her to contend that a prima facie case is not made out.
26. In the limited understanding of law that we have, the factors which are required to be taken into consideration at the stage of grant of bail are – (i) prima facie case, (ii) the possibility of the accused tampering with the evidence or influencing the witnesses, and (iii) the possibility of the accused fleeing away from the hands of justice.
27. No doubt, the gravity and the seriousness of the offence is yet another factor that has to be taken into consideration.
28. If the observations, as recorded by the learned Judge, are to be accepted then no application for bail at a pre-trial stage could be entertained unless the accused files an application for quashing the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., or Articles 226 or 32 of the Constitution of India.
xxx
41. The appellant is directed to be continued on bail, which was granted to her in terms of the order dated 02nd September 2022. The appellant has already surrendered her passport, which shall continue to be in the custody of the Sessions Court.
42. We make it clear that the appellant would not make any attempt to influence the witnesses and shall remain away from them. If the prosecution feels that any such attempt is made by the appellant, they would be entitled to move this Court directly for modification of our orders.
43. We clarify that none of the observations made in the impugned order and any of the observations made by us in our order would influence the trial court at the stage of the trial.
44. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
PARTY: TEESTA ATUL SETALVAD vs. STATE OF GUJARAT – CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 2022/2023 (@ SLP (CRL) NO.8503/2023) – JULY 19, 2023 – 3 Judge Bench.
https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2023/25725/25725_2023_4_301_45290_Judgement_19-Jul-2023.pdf
