Bhubaneswar: The Orissa High Court has come down heavily on a Special Vigilance Judge for denying bail to two persons accused in a corruption case and sending them to police remand despite the HC granting them anticipatory bail.
According to the case details, the two government employees were booked under Section 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act and 409, 468, 471, 477-A and 120-B of the IPC for misappropriating Rs 23,63,940 of government funds.
Fearing arrest, the duo moved the HC seeking anticipatory bail. The HC allowed the bail after the imposition of certain conditions. After the bail and completion of the investigation, a chargesheet was submitted in the case. Upon submission of the chargesheet, the trial court took cognisance of the offence and summoned the two officials. In response to the summons, the duo appeared before the trial court and filed bail applications.
However, the court did not grant them bail, instead remanded them to custody. The counsel appearing for them argued that the order of rejection of bail is illegal as in doing so the Special Vigilance Judge lost sight of sub-section (3) of Section 438 of CrPC whereby the court was required to issue a bailable warrant keeping in mind the order passed by the HC under Section 438(1) of the CrPC. The Vigilance counsel, on the other hand, submitted that as an alternative remedy is available with the two, the instant petition under Section 482 of the CrPC deserves no merit and hence, should be dismissed.
The HC observed that the trial judge failed to appreciate the position of law settled by the top court, which has made it clear that the lifespan of anticipatory bail extends till the conclusion of the trial. After going through the submission of the counsel for the Vigilance, the HC was of the view that the investigating agency did not require the remand of the petitioners. “Therefore, it was inappropriate for the trial court to reject bail to the two under their appearance on summons,” the HC observed. The High Court took serious exception to the development and disapproved the order passed by the Special Vigilance Judge as it disregarded the hierarchal set-up of the judicial institution by passing an order that virtually nullified the effect of the HC order.
