- Home
- /
- Top Stories
- /
- Supreme Court Directs Former MLA...
Supreme Court Directs Former MLA Girraj Singh Malinga To Surrender After Raj HC Cancelled Bail In A Post-Bail Assault Case
Gursimran Kaur Bakshi
9 Nov 2024 7:57 AM IST
The Supreme Court yesterday ordered former BJP MLA Girraj Singh Malinga to surrender after the Rajasthan High Court on July 7 cancelled his bail in the assault case filed against him by the assistant engineer at JVVNL, Harshadhipati (“complainant”) in 2022. The Court has agreed to consider his bail plea on the grounds that he would surrender within 2 weeks. The Rajasthan High Court...
The Supreme Court yesterday ordered former BJP MLA Girraj Singh Malinga to surrender after the Rajasthan High Court on July 7 cancelled his bail in the assault case filed against him by the assistant engineer at JVVNL, Harshadhipati (“complainant”) in 2022.
The Court has agreed to consider his bail plea on the grounds that he would surrender within 2 weeks.
The Rajasthan High Court Court found him to be misusing his 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. The Court found that 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.
Today, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi appeared for Malinga and submitted before a bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Aravind Kumar that "not a single case remains" against the former MLA.
He said: "This particular instance occurred in 2022, which is 30 years after those cases. I was granted bail after few days of incarceration. Milord, that bail was never challenged. The Complainant belongs to the opposite political party and I belong to other political party. He did not challenge and State did not challenge my bail in 2022. Immediately on the grant of bail, within 2 days, he filed an application for cancellation. The cancellation is not on the ground that I violated any condition...The cancellation is on the ground that after I got bail, I participated in a procession and in the procession, he made some utterances which I will show. His utterances have nothing to do with the Complainant. These are generally utterances in favour of the public."
Rohatgi submitted that he has filed a rejoinder showcasing the list of cases in which he argued that the High Court got prejudiced while dealing with the application for cancellation of bail. He added that in all these cases, there is either disclosure or acquittal.
Rohatgi took the Court through the speech made during the procession and also added that in the past, the judge who cancelled the bail had directed a chargesheet to the filed against the former MLA.
However, Justice Sundresh took an exception to these arguments and said: "Ask him to adjudicate. We will close the Courts... We can show some sympathy because you got bail. Go back and come back after some time and we will consider. Otherwise, we will dismiss this. We cannot allow this third-degree method to be proved."
Background
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 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.
Accordingly, the application for cancellation of bail was allowed and the bail granted to the respondent was cancelled.
Case Details: GIRRAJ SINGH MALINGA v STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR., SLP(Crl) No. 9528/2024
