_Gifty_
I am a Joker
Apex court gives bail breather to Sajjan for entire trial in 1984 riots case
The Supreme Court on Monday allowed Congress leader Sajjan Kumar to continue on anticipatory bail during the entire duration of trial in a 1984 anti-Sikh riot case, saying it is not justifiable to keep a person in custody 25 years after the violence.
Calling it an "extraordinary" case, a Bench led by Justice P Sathasivam refused to intervene in a Delhi High Court's February 26 order, granting anticipatory bail to the former Outer Delhi MP, who is an accused in the case.
The court said the delay of 25 years, lack of any semblance of a criminal trial all these years and the fact that no action was taken on the recommendations of several judicial commissions into the riots were the "exceptional" circumstances in favour of Kumar to show that no purpose would be met by taking him into custody after all these years.
The court was hearing the petition of Jagdish Kaur, who lost her husband and three sons to mob fury near the Delhi Cantonment during the riots, to terminate the February 26 bail order.
The widow's case is one of two in which the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed a chargesheet against Kumar and others for allegedly instigating the mob. The CBI has listed offences including robbery, murder, dacoity and inciting mobs in its chargesheet.
A city court had subsequently issued two non-bailable arrest warrants against Kumar on February 17 and 23, respectively. But Kumar, whom the police were unable to trace, moved the High Court and won relief.
Unlike the grant of anticipatory bail (a precaution against arrest) in normal cases, Kumar's bail would last through the entire period of the criminal trial till a final judgment is pronounced in the cases. Usually, a fugitive granted anticipatory bail is directed to surrender and then apply for regular bail in court.
Endorsing the High Court's order, the apex court today said: "We make it clear that normally anticipatory bail is not possible in such (a) case but we have to look into the whole circumstances of the case — like, when this occurrence happened, the lack of trial, the fact that 25 years have passed. Or let's take the case of the CBI: they were handed over the case in 2005 (but) what were they doing till 2010?
"This is not a normal case."
Senior advocate Anil Diwan, appearing for Kaur, responded that "an entire section of the society is aggrieved... there is to be a sense of justice here".
He asked the court: "Are you saying this is an extraordinary case?"
"Yes," Justice P Sathasivam replied, "look at the circumstances. Mind you, we are not underrating the feelings of the victims; we are only looking at the circumstances."
Diwan said: "This gentleman has never been tried for anything concerning (the) Delhi Cantonment incidents. In one case, at Sultanpuri, he was tried and acquitted. But there was no case, no trial against him for the incidents at Delhi Cantonment where 380 people were killed. Is he above the law that he does not go to the court when it summons him, or surrender when it asks him to surrender?"
To this, the Bench simply said the riots are "not an incident that happened last week — the High Court has given adequate reasons for the grant of bail".
The Supreme Court on Monday allowed Congress leader Sajjan Kumar to continue on anticipatory bail during the entire duration of trial in a 1984 anti-Sikh riot case, saying it is not justifiable to keep a person in custody 25 years after the violence.
Calling it an "extraordinary" case, a Bench led by Justice P Sathasivam refused to intervene in a Delhi High Court's February 26 order, granting anticipatory bail to the former Outer Delhi MP, who is an accused in the case.
The court said the delay of 25 years, lack of any semblance of a criminal trial all these years and the fact that no action was taken on the recommendations of several judicial commissions into the riots were the "exceptional" circumstances in favour of Kumar to show that no purpose would be met by taking him into custody after all these years.
The court was hearing the petition of Jagdish Kaur, who lost her husband and three sons to mob fury near the Delhi Cantonment during the riots, to terminate the February 26 bail order.
The widow's case is one of two in which the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed a chargesheet against Kumar and others for allegedly instigating the mob. The CBI has listed offences including robbery, murder, dacoity and inciting mobs in its chargesheet.
A city court had subsequently issued two non-bailable arrest warrants against Kumar on February 17 and 23, respectively. But Kumar, whom the police were unable to trace, moved the High Court and won relief.
Unlike the grant of anticipatory bail (a precaution against arrest) in normal cases, Kumar's bail would last through the entire period of the criminal trial till a final judgment is pronounced in the cases. Usually, a fugitive granted anticipatory bail is directed to surrender and then apply for regular bail in court.
Endorsing the High Court's order, the apex court today said: "We make it clear that normally anticipatory bail is not possible in such (a) case but we have to look into the whole circumstances of the case — like, when this occurrence happened, the lack of trial, the fact that 25 years have passed. Or let's take the case of the CBI: they were handed over the case in 2005 (but) what were they doing till 2010?
"This is not a normal case."
Senior advocate Anil Diwan, appearing for Kaur, responded that "an entire section of the society is aggrieved... there is to be a sense of justice here".
He asked the court: "Are you saying this is an extraordinary case?"
"Yes," Justice P Sathasivam replied, "look at the circumstances. Mind you, we are not underrating the feelings of the victims; we are only looking at the circumstances."
Diwan said: "This gentleman has never been tried for anything concerning (the) Delhi Cantonment incidents. In one case, at Sultanpuri, he was tried and acquitted. But there was no case, no trial against him for the incidents at Delhi Cantonment where 380 people were killed. Is he above the law that he does not go to the court when it summons him, or surrender when it asks him to surrender?"
To this, the Bench simply said the riots are "not an incident that happened last week — the High Court has given adequate reasons for the grant of bail".
