Power, Influence Must Never Eclipse Supremacy Of Law: Rajasthan High Court Cancels Bail Of Former MLA For Threatening Witnesses
The Rajasthan High Court has cancelled the bail of former MLA Girraj Singh Malinga (“respondent”) in the assault case filed against him by the assistant engineer at JVVNL, Harshadhipati (“complainant”) in 2022. The Court found him to be misusing the liberty to showcase his strength of power by organizing a rally soon after getting released on bail and intimidating or threatening...
The Rajasthan High Court has cancelled the bail of former MLA Girraj Singh Malinga (“respondent”) in the assault case filed against him by the assistant engineer at JVVNL, Harshadhipati (“complainant”) in 2022. The Court found him to be misusing the liberty to showcase his strength of power by organizing a rally soon after getting released on bail and intimidating or threatening the witnesses and the complainant. It said:
“Power, influence, position, money, and sentiments, no matter how lofty, must never eclipse the supremacy of law…The actions and conduct of individuals should be in consonance with the spirit and letter of the law, thereby reinforcing the principle that no one is above the legal system.”
The complainant had filed the case alleging that the respondent came to his office in 2022 and started assaulting and abusing him over the accusations that the complainant removed electricity transformers from the respondent's area.
It was argued by the counsel for the petitioner that after filing the complaint, the respondent was not arrested for over one and half months which revealed his influence over the agency. Furthermore, it was stated that the material fact of 19 criminal cases pending against the respondent was also concealed from the court when the bail petition was considered. Pursuant to being granted bail, the respondent conducted a rally and delivered hateful and intimidating speeches, asserting his dominance over the system. Furthermore, threatening phone calls were also made by the respondent's aides to the witnesses and the complainant.
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali held that the assessment for revoking bail is exclusively based on compelling, overwhelming, supervening and intervening circumstances. The Court clarified that supervening circumstances refer to such events that arise after the granting of bail that significantly alter the circumstances based on which the bail was originally granted. These overwhelming circumstances are not exhaustive because additional supervening situations might need reconsideration.
In this background, the Court further observed that the bail jurisprudence revolved around the conduct of the accused. It had to be seen whether there was any apprehension of the accused hampering the evidence while granting the bail. The Court referred to the recent Supreme Court case of Ajwar v Waseem & Anr (2024) in which it was held that for deciding an application for cancelling a granted bail, the could consider whether the conduct of the accused, post bail, demonstrated that it was no longer conducive to a fair trial to permit him to enjoy the concession of bail during trial.
In light of this analysis, the Court took note of the fact that the respondent was a public figure and an elected representative of the then-ruling government. After being released on bail, to convey a message of glorification, he conducted a rally to showcase triumph over the established legal framework. The Court observed that a menacing speech was delivered by the respondent in the rally to canvas a hostile and fearful atmosphere towards his opponents.
The Court frowned upon such glorification of the accused opining that such circumstances subvert the process of justice by creating hostility and intimidation. Reference was made to a similar Supreme Court case of P. v State of Madhya Pradesh and another in which pursuant to the conduct of similar glorification rally by the accused out on bail, the Apex Court cancelled the bail observing that the conduct evoked bona fide fear in the complainant's mind of not getting a free and fair trial if the accused remained out on bail. The Court said:
“Glorification of an accused is fundamentally detrimental to the interests of society and undermines the integrity of the justice dispensation system… Glorification of a triumph after having committed an illegal act, at all times gives a message to the society and that a powerful person can do anything in utter disregard to Rule of Law. Repercussion of the same is far fetching thereby weaking the faith and trust upon the rule of Law and Justice.”
Accordingly, glorification was ruled as a critical supervening circumstance requiring serious consideration as a substantial ground for cancellation of bail.
The Court also considered certain facts that suggested the respondent's influence over the agencies. It was observed that even after being a direct accused in the case, he was not taken into custody. Even after surrendering, he was not kept in prison but in a hospital on account of testing COVID-19 positive. However, a day after being granted bail, he tested negative. Furthermore, the fact of several pending criminal cases against the accused was also concealed from the court when his bail application was being considered. The Court held that all these events collectively speak of the exertion of influence by the respondent throughout the entire investigative process and an attempt to manipulate the investigational procedure.
Considering all these factors alongside the aforementioned legal position, the Court referred to the Supreme Court case of Neeru Yadav v State of U.P. in which it was held that misuse of liberty under bail, like indulging in activities detrimental to public order, warrants cancellation of bail.
The Court also referred to another Supreme Court case of Panchanan Mishra v Digambar Mishra & Ors. which opined that the power to take back in custody an accused who was granted bail was of extra-ordinary nature that needs to be exercised in cases where by preponderance of probabilities it was clear that the accused was interfering with the course of justice by tampering with witnesses.
“After adverting to the supervening factors of the case, the present case in hand not only warrants interference with the bail granted to Respondent No. 2, but also highlights the need to prevent future instances where liberty is manipulated by individuals based on their social status and influence over the public…The conduct of the accused respondent post-release on bail, specifically involving the issuance of threats to witnesses, constitutes a compelling and supervening circumstance that unequivocally warrants the cancellation of bail," it was held.Ra
Accordingly, the application for cancellation of bail was allowed and the bail granted to the respondent was cancelled.
Title: Harshadhipati v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 145