Criminal Appeal No 669 of 1989
From the Judgment and Order dated 1851989 of the Designated Court Poona in Crl
Bail Application No 11 of 1989
G Ramaswamy Additional Solicitor General SV Tar kunde and AM Khanwilkar for the Appellant
UR Lalit and VN Ganpule for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by FATHIMA BEEVI J
By the impugned order dated the 18th May 1989 the Designated Court Pune directed the respondent to be released on bail
The respondent was accused of having committed offence under Section 31 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Prevention Act 1987 hereinafter referred to as the Act  besides the offences punishable under Sections 148 149 120 B and 302 of the Indian Penal Code
The respondent was the member of the Shiv Sena Party and the Chief of the Thane District Unit
In consequence of the defeat of the party in Mayoral election held on 20th March 1989 the party felt that 75 there was cross voting and there were traitors among them
There had been a declaration by the respondent that such traitors would not be spared
The respondent was arrested in connection with the murder of one of the Corporators Shrid har Khopkar on 214
1989 on registering Crime No 134889
In releasing the respondent on bail while investigation was pending the Designated Court appears to have been influenced by the fact that respondent was the leader of Political Party
The court assumed that as a leader he would not be involved in such crimes and that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the respondent is not guilty of any offence under the Act
Having heard both the sides we feel that the whole approach by the learned Judge was misconceived and the order is unsustainable
We have been taken through the entire proceedings
We find that the learned Judge has not noticed the relevant provisions of the Act which restrict the powers of the Court in granting bail
The learned Judge had also refused to consider the materials placed before it for the purpose of satisfying himself whether there are no reasona ble grounds to believe that the respondent has committed the offence
In the course of the investigation witnesses have been questioned and their statements have been reduced to writing
The learned Judge refused to consider the state ments recorded in the course of the investigation for the simple reason that such statements had not been read out in open Court though the Court was empowered to peruse the case diary for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the stage of investigation and the nature of the evidence that had been collected
Sub Section 8 of Section 20 of the Act clearly pro vides that unless the Court is satisfied for the reasons to be recorded that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the respondent is not involved in disruptive activi ties bail shall ordinarily be refused
Even under the provisions of Sections 437 and 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the powers of the Sessions Judge are not unfet tered
The salient principles in granting bail in grave crimes have not been taken note of
This Court would not ordinarily interfere with the discretion of the lower court in granting or refusing bail but in cases where bail has been granted on irrelevant considerations such as the status or influence of the person accused and regardless of the nature of the accusa tion and relevancy of materials on record this Court would not 76 hesitate to interfere for the ends of justice
There are no hard and fast rules regarding grant or refusal of bail each case has to be considered on its own merits
The matter always calls for judicious exercise of discretion by the Court
Where the offence is of serious nature the Court has to decide the question of grant of bail in the light of such considerations as the nature and seri ousness of offence character of the evidence circumstances which are peculiar to the accused a reasonable possibility of presence of the accused not being secured at the trial and the reasonable apprehension of witness being tampered with the larger interest of the public or such similar other considerations
In the present case the learned Judge observed that it is a case of respectable person of a big political organisa tion his freedom cannot be curtailed if he is entitled to bail
His liberty cannot be curbed if enlarged on bail and therefore no kind of condition is required to be imposed
The Court also observed that being a leader of the big political organisation one cannot expect that the respondent will commit any offence if enlarged on bail and he cannot be called to be a criminal
The learned Judge was obsessed by the fact that the respondent was associated with a political party and was oblivious of the nature of the allegations made against him and the relevant materials indicating that the respondent had been making utterances inciting violence
The respondent gave repeated statements to the Press saying that the traitors  life will be made difficult and probably they will be killed
This was published in Marathi Daily Navakal  on 22389
He repeated his threat and this ap peared in an interview given to the reporter of the Weekly Magazine Lokprabha  in its issue of 941989
In an inter view in daily Urdu Times  dated 1641989 the respondent asserted that he knew the names of the traitors but could not disclose the same
He also asserted that the punishment for traitors is death and they would be killed and this decision has not been taken by him in anger
In the backdrop of such assertions it was necessary for the Court to consider the further materials collected by the investigating agency by recording statements of witness es
The court below misdirected itself in refusing to look into such statements and concluding that it is a case for granting bail taking into account only the position held by the respondent in the party
The court clearly erred in disposing of the application for bail
77 In view of what has been stated above we set aside the order of the Designated Court and allow the appeal and cancel the bail granted to the respondent without prejudice to his right to move the Designated Court at any subsequent stage
GN Appeal allowed


Summary:
The appellant defendants fell in arrears of rent for the months of February and May to August 1974 for the demised premises
The respondent plaintiffs sought their eviction under section 111d of the Bihar Buildings Lease Rent and Eviction Control Act 1947 on the grounds of default
Decreeing the suit the trial court found that rent for the said five months had not been paid
The decree was affirmed by the appellate court in part that is in respect of May and June 1974
That finding was affirmed by the High Court
Allowing the appeal by special leave the Court HELD The Supreme Court does not ordinarily interfere in proceedings under Article 136 of the Constitution particu larly when all the courts below had reached the same conclu sion
But where the finding of fact is based on no evidence or opposed to the totality of evidence and contrary to the rational conclusion to which the state of evidence must reasonably lead then the Court will in the exercise of its discretion intervene to prevent miscarriage of justice
154C D In the instant case there was no reliable oral evidence on the side of the plaintiffs to support the allegation that rents were in arrears
Nor was there any documentary evi dence in support of their case
Neither the first plaintiff the widow nor the other two plaintiffs her children testi fied in support of the allegation PW 4 who verified the plaint on behalf of the plaintiffs admittedly had no person al knowledge that the defendants were in arrears of rent or whether the first plaintiff or anybody else had demanded rent from the defendants
156F G On the other hand DW 8 one of the defendants stated that for the months of May and June 1974 he had paid the rent in June 1974 by 153 handing over the amount to the first plaintiff s daughter when she went to his shop tO collect the rent
Since she was a minor he accompanied her to her house to make sure that the amount was received by her mother the first plaintiff
This evidence has been supported by DW 7
He was the Ac countant of the first defendant firm
DW 6 also spoke of the fact that in June 1974 the defendants had given Rs200 as rent to the younger daughter of the plaintiff
These state ments of defence witnesses were categoric and clear
There was no contradiction in term for there was no evidence on the side of the plaintiffs to the contrary
The conclusion arrived at by the courts below that rents remained in ar rears was therefore perverse and totally unjustified
155A B E 156D F G