Order
1. These two special leave petitions are filed, one by Laloo Prasad Yadav and the other by Jagannath Mishra (both were Chief Ministers of the State of Bihar during different periods) and they are now accused in RC No. 47-A of 1997. This is one of the cases connected with “Bihar Fodder Scam”. They now challenge the orders passed by the Special Court, Ranchi refusing bail to them. In this case both the petitioners surrendered before the Special Court on 26-11-2001 and they continue in detention.
2. When these petitions were taken up Shri Mukul Rohatgi, learned Additional Solicitor-General raised a preliminary objection that the petitioners must first approach the High Court of Ranchi in challenge of the impugned orders before approaching this Court with the special leave petition. Shri Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Laloo Prasad Yadav submitted that in view of the special circumstances of this case this Court may be pleased to entertain the special leave petition even though the petitioner has not approached the High Court first. The circumstances are these:
These petitioners are involved as accused in six cases, all connected with Bihar Fodder Scam. The conspiracy alleged in respect of all these cases was the same. Laloo Prasad Yadav was arrested on 30-7-1997 in connection with RC No. 20-A of 1997 which is one of the offshoots of the same conspiracy. Similarly he was arrested in connection with RC No. 64-A of 1997 on 28-10-1998. This Court had granted bail to him in the latter case on 7-1-1999 on certain conditions and he is abiding by those conditions till now. Altogether he has already undergone pre-trial detention for nearly nine months by now. If he has to go to the High Court in challenge of the impugned order all that would ensue as a consequence is prolongation of his detention because the basic order of bail granted by this Court on 7-1-1999 can justifiably be applied to him in the present case also. Learned counsel submitted one more aspect for permitting the petitioner to approach this Court directly without approaching the High Court. Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 6365 of 2001 was filed by him in challenge of an order passed by the Patna High Court in respect of some of the cases connected with Bihar Fodder Scam (one of such cases is RC No. 47-A of 1997) and this Court has stayed the arrest of Laloo Prasad Yadav and Jagannath Mishra until the disposal of that special leave petition. He has moved an interlocutory application in the said special leave petition praying that he may be granted bail in RC No. 47-A of 1997 but the said special leave petition has practically become infructuous when a three-Judge Bench of this Court has ordered that thirty-six cases connected with Bihar Fodder Scam (including RC No. 47-A) stood transferred to the State of Jharkhand pursuant to operation of the provisions of the Bihar States Reorganisation Act. It was in the aforesaid context that interlocutory application for bail was heard and dismissed by this Court suggesting that they may first surrender before the trial court and apply for bail.
3. Shri P.S Mishra, learned Senior Counsel arguing for Jagannath Mishra submitted that the petitioner had in fact approached the High Court in challenge of the impugned order but he withdrew Bail Application No. 9538 of 2001 (R) on 4-12-2001 for approaching this Court in special leave petition as his position is substantially on a par with the position of Laloo Prasad Yadav.
4. In the above peculiar circumstances and the interconnections of the case with the facts in RC No. 64-A of 1997 in which bail was granted to these petitioners by this Court, we are not disposed to reject the special leave petitions purely for the purpose of directing them to go to the High Court first before approaching this Court. We, therefore, persuade ourselves to entertain these special leave petitions.
5. Leave granted.
6. As the appellants were already in jail for more than six months in connection with cases arising out of Bihar Fodder Scam a plea was made that the benefit granted to the other accused involved in the same case may be granted to these persons also. From 8-5-2001 onwards various accused involved in Bihar Fodder Scam cases were being released on bail by orders of this Court, if such accused had already been in jail for about six months. This Court did not reject the bail application in respect of any one of the accused arraigned in these series of cases who had remained in jail for six months and above merely on the ground that another offshoot case of the main conspiracy has since been registered or even charge-sheeted against him.
7. The most serious of the offences now pitted against the petitioner is Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act punishable with a maximum sentence of imprisonment for seven years. Having considered the merits of the case including the fact that the petitioners were in jail for a period of more than six months by now (which partly includes the pre-trial detention in other connected cases also) we do not think that further detention of them as pre-trial prisoners would be of any necessity in this case.
8. Shri Mukul Rohatgi, learned Additional Solicitor-General while opposing the bail application submitted that the appellants are very powerful persons and influential and if they are allowed to be at large they would tamper with the evidence, threaten witnesses and impair the progress of the trial. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the appellants would not do any of such acts and they are prepared to abide by any condition imposed by this Court for ensuring it. As we granted bail to these appellants in the connected cases on stringent conditions in order to allay the fears expressed by CBI we think it is enough to impose the same conditions in the present cases also.
9. In the result we order the appellants to be released on interim bail for six months on their executing a bond with two solvent sureties, each in a sum of rupees one lakh to the satisfaction of the trial court at Ranchi on the following conditions:
(a) the appellant shall not directly or indirectly or through others make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts to the court or to any other authority;
(b) he shall remain present before the court on the dates fixed for hearing of the case. If he wants to remain absent then he shall take prior permission of the court and in case of unavoidable circumstances for remaining absent he shall immediately give intimation to the appropriate court (AHD) and also to the Superintendent, CBI and request that he may be permitted to be present through his counsel;
(c) he will not dispute his identity as the accused in the case;
(d) he shall surrender his passport, if any (if not already surrendered), and in case he is not a holder of the same he shall swear to an affidavit. If he has already surrendered before the Designated Court, that fact should also be supported by an affidavit;
(e) he shall not give for publicity his comments or opinion on the merits of the case pending against him, except when he is required to state it in the court concerned;
(f) he shall desist from any euphoric demonstration for being bailed out in these cases.
10. Appeals are disposed of accordingly.