“we are of the view that the fact that the co-accused who was released on bail has not surrendered cannot be a germane factor to decline bail to the co-accused”
appellant had been under custody for two years and 11 months. The bench directed the High Court to reconsider the bail application, particularly taking note of the fact that charges have been framed and 19 prosecution witnesses are proposed to be examined.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1578 OF 2023
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3518 of 2023)
SEBIL ELANJIMPALLY Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ODISHA Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Leave granted.
The impugned order is one by which the application for
bail filed by the appellant has been rejected.
The appellant has been charged for alleged commission
of offences under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The appellant has
been in custody for two years and 11 months. The impugned
order is the order passed in the second bail application.
The earlier bail application came to be rejected on
07.07.2022. It is, in fact, pointed out by the learned
counsel for the State that another attempt at securing bail
from the High Court has failed.
As far as the impugned order goes, we notice that the
following is the reasoning:
“Taking into account that the co-accused, who has
1
CRL. APPEAL NO. 1578/2023(@ SLP (Crl.) No. 3518/ 2023)
since been released on bail has not surrendered,
this Court is constrained not to entertain the bail
application of the petitioner.”
Thereafter the Court proceeded to note the case of the
appellant that his father has undergone surgery and the
Court proceeded to direct expeditious disposal of the case.
We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant
and also the learned counsel for the State as noted.
The impugned order shows that what has weighed with
the Court is the fact that the co-accused who was released
on bail has not surrendered. It is this factor alone which
we can discern to be the reason to not entertain the bail
application.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are
of the view that the fact that the co-accused who was
released on bail has not surrendered cannot be a germane
factor to decline bail to the co-accused, namely, the
appellant.
In such circumstances, we are of the view that the
matter must have reconsideration again at the hands of the
High Court. The appeal is allowed. The impugned order is
set aside. The High Court will take up BLAPL No. 6803/2022
and pass orders on the same in view of the fact that it is a
case where the charges have been framed and 19 prosecution
witnesses are proposed to be examined by the State.
We request the High Court to take up the application
2
CRL. APPEAL NO. 1578/2023(@ SLP (Crl.) No. 3518/ 2023)
and dispose of the same at the earliest and if possible,
preferably within a period of two months from the date of
production of the copy of the order.
…………………………………………………………., J.
[ K.M. JOSEPH ]
…………………………………………………………., J.
[ ARAVIND KUMAR ]
New Delhi;
May 18, 2023.
3