While granting bail the court said every person, detained or arrested, is entitled to a speedy trial.
In a judgment that should give hope to Rajya Sabha MP Kanimozhi and former telecom minister A Raja, the Supreme Court on Wednesday granted bail to five executives of telecom companies who have been in jail for the past seven months for their alleged involvement in the 2G spectrum scam. The 63-page verdict could pave the way for bail to 13 other accused, including Kanimozhi and Raja.
While granting bail to Sanjay Chandra of Unitech Wireless, Vinod Goenka of Swan Telecom and Reliance Group’s Gautam Doshi, Surendra Pipara and Hari Nair, the court said every person, detained or arrested, is entitled to a speedy trial. If that is not possible, the court said he is entitled to bail. A bench of justices GL Singhvi and HL Dattu passed the judgment on the basis of the appeals filed by the five executives.
“Since the charge sheet has been filed in the case, there is no legal necessity for their being in jail till the completion of the trial,” the court said. Justices Singhvi and Dattu asked the executives to file a bail bond of Rs5 lakh each and two sureties. The court also said the executives will not contest on being called an accused in the case and would surrender their passports and attend court proceedings without fail.
The court, however, has allowed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to file an application seeking modification of the order, if need be. CBI lawyer and additional solicitor general Haren P Raval opposed the bail for the five people, saying bail should be denied in all cases ofcorruption which pose a threat to the economic fabric of the country.
He also said that the balance should “tilt in favour of public interest”. Lawyers such as Ram Jethmalani, former attorney generals Ashok Desai and Soli J Sorabjee, and Mukul Rohtagi stressed that bail is the rule and jail is an exception. They also argued that if convicted, the accused could be sentenced to a maximum term of seven years. There is little chance of them absconding or influencing the witnesses or trial, they said. The lawyers also said the accused could not be kept in jail for an indefinite period and that the possibility of the trial being over quickly is bleak.
The judges noted that earlier, bail was rejected as neither the charge sheets were filed nor were the charges framed. The situation has changed now. Underscoring the right to a speedy trial, the top court said considering the mammoth charge sheet and the charges framed against the accused and “several hundred pages” of documents and the statements of witnesses, the trial “may take considerable time”.
“It appears to us that the appellants (accused), who are in jail, have to remain in jail longer than the period of detention, had they been convicted,” the court said. “It is not in the interest of justice that the accused should be in jail for an indefinite period.”
Conceding that the offence alleged against the accused “is a serious one in terms of the alleged huge loss to the state exchequer”, the apex court, however, said that by itself, “should not deter us from enlarging them on bail” in the absence of any serious contention by the CBI that they would interfere with the trial or tamper with evidence, if enlarged on bail.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}