- Bench: MarkandeyaKatju, GyanSudhaMisra, JJ.
- Appellant: State of Kerala
- Respondent: Raneef
Issue
Whether bail granted by High Court to the respondent is justified.
Facts
- Seven assailants assaulted and chopped off Prof. Jacob's right palm while he was returning from Sunday mass.
- His nine year old son tried to protect him and injured an assailant in the process.
- The assailant was treated by a dentist namely Raneefwho stitched his wound at hisback at a place 45km away from the place of attack.
- Jacob was attacked for incorporating a question on criticizing Prophet Muhammad and Islam in the internal examination of BCom paper.
- Both the assistants and Raneef were members of Popular Front of India, the respondent being the head of its Medical Committee.
Appellant's Contentions:
- It wasn't the respondent's job to stitch the assailant's wound, him being a dentist.
- Respondent treated him in pursuance of a prior plan to help the assailants in case of any injury.
- Certain documents, CDs, mobile phone, books etc. including a book called Jihad were seized from Raneef's house and car.
- Appellants relied on Proviso to s.43-D(5) of UAPA Act, 1967 which stated that accused shall not be released on bail if the court, on perusal of the case diary of the report u/s.173, CrPC, is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is prima facie true.
Respondent's Contentions:
- Even according the prosecution, respondent was not a one of the assailants and was not named in FIR.
- The attack was a crime and needs condemnation. But in the pretext of investigation, the police has unleashed a reign of terror in innocents of the minority community.
- Social Democratic Front of India and PFI are not terrorist organisations. Rather, the former is a political party recognised by Election Commission and the latter registered under the Societies Registration Act. Both have no history of crimes.
- The said book found titled Jihad was a Malayalam translation of an Urdu book of 1927 by a renownedand revered religious scholar Maulana Sayyid Abul Ala Maudoodi and has been in circulation for eighty-three years.
Judgment
The Court dismissed the appeal against the order of the Kerala High Courtfor grant of bail to the respondent.
Relevant Paragraphs
Para 15.
"On deciding bail applications, an important factor which should certainly be taken into consideration by the court is the delay in concluding the trial. Often this takes several years, and if the accused is denied bail, but is ultimately acquitted, who will restore so many years of his life spent in custody? Is Article 21 of the Constitution, which is the most basic of all the fundamental rights in our Constitution, not violated in such a case? Of course this is not the only factor, but it is certainly one of the important factors in deciding whether to grant bail. In the present case the respondent had already spent 66 days in custody (as stated in Para 2 of his counter-affidavit), and we see no reason why he should be denied bail. A doctor incarcerated for a long period may end up like Dr.Manette in Charles Dicken's novel A Tale of Two Cities,who forgot his profession and even his name in the Bastille."
