Top News Headlines 10th Mar 2022: Rajiv Gandhi Assasination Convict Perarivalan Released After 32 Years: Strong Opposition From Centre

Rajiv Gandhi Assasination Convict Perarivalan Released After 32 Years: Strong Opposition From Centre

• In a very significant development, in the case of AG Perarivalan vs State of Tamil Nadu the Hon’ble SC has granted bail to the Rajiv Gandhi assasination case convict Perarivalan, who has moved the Apex Court seeking a remission of his sentence.
• The Bench of Justices Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai noted that Perarivalan had undergone 32 years of his life sentence. He had been released on parole thrice this year. The Court was of the opinion that Perarivalan had spent nearly 30 years in jail and that he is entitled to be released on bail.
• Perarivalan was convicted and sentenced to death when he was just 19 years old for his role in making the bomb which was responsible for the death of Late PM Rajiv Gandhi. The Hon’ble Apex Court in 2014 had commuted his death penalty to life imprisonment due to delay in deciding his mercy pleas.
• Perarivalan had applied to the Governor of Tamil Nadu requesting a pardon in December, 2015.in September 2018, the Apex Court asked the Governor to decide the pardon plea as he deemed fit. Three days after this, the Governor was recommended by the Tamil Nadu Government to remit Perarivalan’s sentence and release him forthwith, but the Governor hasn't decided on the same yet.
• It is the Governor’s contention that the President is the competent authority to decide upon the grant of remission, despite the Central Bureau of Investigation informing the Apex Court that the Governor is a competent authority to decide on the remission plea.
• The Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj appearing for the Centre had strongly opposed the grant of bail. It was argued that Perarivalan had already availed of the benefit of mercy petition and his death penalty had already been commuted to life by the Apex Court in 2014 keeping in view the delay in deciding his mercy petition.
• The Additional Solicitor General also referred to the decision of the Apex Court in Sriharan Case of 2015 to argue that under section 432(7) of CrPC, the appropriate authority to decide the pardon is the Central Government as the offence is under a law to which the executive power of the State extends.
• Senior Advocate Gopal Shankaranarayanan appearing for Perarivalan has submitted before the Apex Court that the ‘larger issue’ raised by the Centre was just a sham and the governments and the Governor have just been changing their stance throughout the case. The Centre had taken a stance that the MDMA is probing the ‘larger conspiracy’ behind the assasination of Rajiv Gandhi, and called the same a bogus plea.
• It was also pointed out by the petitioners that Gopal Godse, one of the accused in the Mahatma Gandhi assasination case was also released after 14 years, after his life sentence was remitted. In this case, however, the petitioner had languished in jail for 32 long years.
• The Apex Court, while granting bail, also said that Perarivalan would have to report to the local police at Jolarpettai during the first week of each month. The petition has been kept pending to decide the larger issue relating to deciding the appropriate authority for the grant of remission, the Governor or the President.

An Attempt to Combat Violence and Evil Through Nature; Accused To Plant Saplings As Bail Condition; Trial Court To Track Growth: Madhya Pradesh HC

• In Kalla @ Vidyaram Vs. State of MP (2022), Justice Anand Pathak overruled the Madhya Pradesh High Court's imposed condition for obtaining bail, which required a Bail Applicant to plant five seedlings of any 'fruit yielding tree' or 'Neem/Pipal tree,' by stating that the bail request was granted solely on the merits of the case and not in exchange for any social duty.
• In the present case, the Applicant appealed that a false case for offenses punishable under Section 302, Section 323, Section 294, Section 506, and Section 34 IPC was filed against him. It was further claimed that no tampering of evidence was done as the evidence was thoroughly examined. The Applicant also assured the Hon'ble Court that he would not cause any inconvenience to any of the witnesses and would be cooperative during the length of the trial. He contended that his case be considered for bail based on the length of his imprisonment. Furthermore, the Applicant stated that if granted bail, he voluntarily intended to "serve the National/Environmental/Social cause to purge his misdeed."
• The essential sections to this case are mentioned below:

1. Section 302 of the IPC says if a person commits murder, he or she will be sentenced to death or life imprisonment, as well as a fine.
2. Section 323 of the IPC applies to cases where only minor injuries are sustained, in contrast to more severe instances of violence, which are dealt with under Section 324 where weapons are used, Section 325 where "grievous" harm is caused.
3. Section 294 of the IPC signifies whosoever, to aggravate others, does any obscene act in any public place; or sings, recites, or utters any obscene song, ballad, or words in or near any public place, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term that may extend to three months, or with fine, or with both.
4. Section 506 of the IPC specifies the punishment for criminal intimidation. It divides criminal intimidation into two categories: less severe and more severe, and punishment is assigned accordingly.
5. Section 34 of the IPC deals with acts committed by a group of people to further a common goal.

• In a similar notable case, Akshaya Kumar, father of the victim and a resident of Madhapur village, had filed a police complaint. However, Justice Panigrahi, of Orissa HC, ruled that there was no prima facie case against the petitioner. The accused, Subhranshu Pradhan, had applied for bail in HC after being charged under Sections 452, 379, 506, 354 B, and 307 of the IPC. As a result, on Friday, Justice Panigrahi granted him bail with the condition that he plant 100 saplings in his native village Mundipadar within three months of his release. As proof of compliance, the petitioner was required to show the plantations to the IO of the Baunsumni police station, who would then notify the trial court, according to the order.
• The Hon'ble Court, taking into consideration the fact that material prosecution witnesses have been examined, the possibility of tampering with the evidence is remote and keeping in mind and the State's objection to the application, granted bail to the accused on a condition that a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with two solvent sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court was to be furnished by the Applicant.
• In spreading out the bail conditions, the Court added Condition 9 of the bail order, which was imposed solely after considering the Applicants' expressed desire to perform community service, which required the Applicant to-
• Plant 5 saplings of a 'fruit-bearing tree' or a 'Neem/Pipal' tree that stands 6-8 feet tall to help them grow faster.
• Protect the saplings by surrounding them with fences, as nurturing the saplings is just as important as planting them.
• Within 30 days of being released from jail, the photographs of the planted saplings are to be submitted.
• A status report on the planted saplings shall be submitted in the Court every three months for the next three years.
• Submission of photographs by downloading the mobile application (NISARG App) developed at the HC request to monitor the plantation via satellite/Geo-tagging.
• Consequently, the Hon'ble Court ruled that this condition is proposed as an experiment to combat thoughts of violence and evil through nature to stabilize society. Thus, the Applicant must care for the saplings because changing environmental conditions threaten humanity's existence. However, any carelessness displayed in this regard would not be tolerated and could cancel the Applicant's bail.
• Therefore, the appeal was allowed by the Hon'ble Court.

Period Of Delay In Conclusion Of Trial, A Valid Consideration While Granting Bail: Gujarat HC

• In Mohsin Salimbhai Qureshi V. State Of Gujarat, 2022, under the Central Goods and Services Act of 2017, Justice Gita Gopi granted bail to an accused after observing that in deciding bail applications, the Court should undoubtedly take the delay in concluding the trial into account.
• In this instance, the applicant was placed in judicial custody under Section 69 of the CGST Act 2017 for creating a chain of bogus firms without a physical receipt through which he illegally received and utilized Input Tax Credit worth rupees 10.29 crores and supplied goods on fraudulent ITC to its customers. He was also denied bail under Section 437 of the CrPC and criminal miscellaneous application.
• The applicant's central claim was that he was arrested without any evidence. He stated that he was registered under the former VAT regime and the GST regime under Section 139, demonstrating that he was a tax-paying citizen and did not merely conduct his business on paper. It was further contended that the officers discovered stock containing iron scrap at the applicant's business premises during the de-sealing procedure, which was supported by legal and valid documents and invoices. Another claim was that the GST Act was a fiscal statute, and the purpose of the law was to provide a mechanism for recovering the amount owed to the government under Section 69 (1). The accused, thus, sought bail under Section 439 CrPC. However, it was contended by the Respondents' that the iron scrap in the applicant's shop premises lacked a stock register, as required by Section 35 of the CGST Act. It further claimed that attempts were also made to locate the central place of business, but the authorities could not find it. As a result, it was determined that this entity did not exist.
• The important statues to this case are mentioned below:

1. Section 439 of the CrPC refers to the High Court's or Court of Session's special bail powers.
2. The Central Goods and Services Act 2017 is an act to make provision for the Central Government to levy and collect tax on intra-State supply of goods or services or both, and for matters connected with or incidental to it.
3. Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017 talks about punishment for certain offenses is discussed under the Central Goods and Services Act.
4. Section 120B of the IPC defines the punishment for criminal conspiracy.
5. Section 69 of the CGST Act 2017 denotes the Commissioner's authority to arrest by order if he has reasonable grounds to believe that a person has committed the offenses.
6. Section 437 of the Criminal Procedure Code states that a person arrested for committing a non-bailable offense without an officer's warrant may be released on bail.
7. Section 139 of the Income Tax Act of 1961 contains several provisions relating to the late filing of various income tax returns.

• In a parallel case, Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI [2012 1 SCC 40], the applicant was accused of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property and forgery for cheating using a forged document as genuine. The Hon'ble SC stated in this case that the delay in concluding the trial must be considered as a relevant factor in deciding bail applications.
• In another notable case, Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan [(2005) 2 SCC 42], the Hon'ble Court stated that under the criminal laws of the country, a person accused of non-bailable offenses is liable to be detained in custody during the pendency of trial unless he is expanded on bail under law.
• In light of Section 138 of the CGST Act and the case as mentioned earlier, the Court stated that taking the provisions of law and the fact into account, the Commissioner was authorized to recover the due amount and propose for abatement of the litigation, and as the trial will take its own time to conclude, this Court finds this to be a fit case where it could exercise discretion could be in favor of the applicant.
• Therefore, the bail application was granted on the condition that a personal bond of rupees 1,000,000 and one surety of the same amount be provided.