Supreme Court sets aside bail rejection order by Justice Dr. Anshuman in a case of criminal misconduct by a public servant

In Rajni Priya vs. The State Through Central Bureau of Investigation, Bihar (2025), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan allowed the criminal appeal. The Court's 3-page long order reads: "The order dated 20.06.2025 of the High Court rejecting the bail prayer of the appellant is set aside. The appellant shall be released on bail on such terms and conditions as the Trial Court concerned may deem fit and proper to impose in the facts and circumstances of the case."  

The appeal arises from a 4-page long order dated June 20, 2025 passed by Dr. Anshuman of the Patna High Court rejecting the bail prayer of the appellant in connection with RC Case No.14(A)/2017 corresponding Special Case no.12/2020. The contention of the counsel for the appellant was that the prosecution case was in respect of fraudulent transfer from account of the organization. It was contended that appellant acted as a co-signatory for a very short duration when allegedly there were limited unlawful transactions. Moreover, the other co-signatory had been granted bail. It was also contended that since appellant had already suffered over two years of incarceration; she being a lady was entitled to be released on bail pending trial. 

The counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant but could not dispute that co-signatory has been granted bail and that appellant had already suffered more than two years of incarceration pending trial. 

The High Court had heard the criminal miscellaneous application filed under Sections 483 and 484 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner who was in custody in connection with R.C. Case No.14(A)/2017 corresponding to Special Case No.12 of 2020, under Sections 409/420/467/468/471/34/120B of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 13(2)/13(1)(c)/(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 pending in the Court of Special Judge, CBI-II, Patna. 3. Earlier prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected by the High Court vide order dated 22.02.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No.11113 of 2024. The counsel for the petitioner had submitted that charge was already framed against the petitioner in this case and he was in custody since August 11, 2023. He submitted that no purpose would be solved keeping the petitioner in custody and petitioner was being unnecessarily harassed.

Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 deals with the criminal misconduct by a public servant. Section 13 [(1) reads: "A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,-(a)if he dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates or otherwise converts for his own use any property entrusted to him or any property under his control as a public servant or allows any other person so to do; or(b)if he intentionally enriches himself illicitly during the period of his office.Explanation 1. - A person shall be presumed to have intentionally enriched himself illicitly if he or any person on his behalf, is in possession of or has, at any time during the period of his office, been in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account for.Explanation 2. - The expression 'known sources of income' means income received from any lawful sources.]" Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act reads:"Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than one year but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine."

In his order, Justice Dr. Anshuman had concluded:"After going through the report of the stage of the Trial it transpires that there are total 26 accused persons in this case and charge has been framed on 28.02.2025, total 64 witnesses and 226 documents are on the record, which are the basis of the Trial. The Court of CBI has indicated that the Trial is likely to be concluded approximately within one and half years. 7. In the light of the submissions made by the parties, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the accused at present. Hence, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. 8. It is directed to the CBI to adduce evidence of the material witnesses at the earliest preferably within six months."  

Reversing Justice Dr. Anshuman's order, the Supreme Court observed:"...without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case, we are of the view that the appellant is entitled to be released on bail pending trial at this stage." 

Supreme Court upholds order by Justice Soni Shrivastava refusing grant of anticipatory bail

In Kauleshwar Prasad Sah vs. The State of Bihar (2025), Supreme Court’s Division Bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi passed a 2-page long order dated August 25, 2025 in the case related to a scam in the University and the alleged financial defraud by all the petitioners. . It reads:”It is also a fact that the special leave petitions preferred by Mr. Jitendra Kumar (SLP (Crl.) No.7000/2025 @ D.No.22186/2025), Mr. Manoj Gupta(SLP (Crl.) No. 7168/2025 @ D.No. 24324/2025), Dr. Ashok Kumar (SLP (Crl.) No.8245/2025 @ D.No.27267/2025) and Mr. Sunil Agarwal(SLP (Crl.) No.8215/2025 @ D.No.27269 of 2025) asking pre-arrest bail have been rejected by this Court. 2) Considering all these aspects, we are not inclined to grant anticipatory bail as prayed for. Accordingly, the special leave petitions stand rejected….3) However, the officers are at liberty to take recourse as permissible.” The special leave to appeal (Criminal) arose out of impugned final judgment and order dated April 17, 2025 in Kauleshwar Prasad Sah vs. The State of Bihar through Spl. Vigilance Unit, Patna, Bihar passed by the Patna High Court. 

In Kauleshwar Prasad Sah vs. The State of Bihar through Spl. Vigilance Unit, Patna, Bihar (2025), in her 7-page long order dated April 17, 2025, Justice Soni Srivastava of Patna High Court had concluded:”…it appears that there is strong allegation of conspiracy as against the present petitioner showing his involvement and also considering the fact that similarly situated co-accused persons have already been denied the anticipatory bail by co-ordinate benches of this Court vide order dated 13.02.2025 passed in Cr.Misc. No. 74836 of 2024, Vide order dated 08.04.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 32493 of 2024, Cr. Misc. No. 22548 of 2024, Cr. Misc No. 33718 of 2024, Cr. Misc No. 31143 of 2024, Cr. Misc. No. 32191 of 2024, Cr. Misc. No. 32719 of 2024 and Cr. Misc. No. 83228 of 2024 and also considering the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Devinder Kumar Bansal (Supra), I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner and his prayer for bail is hereby, rejected. 12. This application stands dismissed.” 

Justice Srivastava referred to Supreme Court’s paragraphs 23-26 of the decision in Devinder Kumar Bansal vs. The State of Punjab (Special Leave to Appeal (CRL). No.3247 of 2025) reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 291. It reads:  “23. The presumption of innocence, by itself, cannot be the sole consideration for grant of anticipatory bail. The presumption of innocence is one of the considerations, which the court should keep in mind while considering the plea for anticipatory bail. The salutary rule is to balance the cause of the accused and the cause of the public justice. Over solicitous homage to the accused's liberty can, sometimes, defeat the cause of public justice. 24. If liberty is to be denied to an accused to ensure corruption free society, then the Courts should not hesitate in denying such liberty. Where overwhelming considerations in the nature of aforesaid require denial of anticipatory bail, it has to be denied. It is altogether a different thing to say that once the investigation is over and charge sheet is filed, the Court may consider to grant regular bail to a public servant- accused of indulging in corruption. 25. Avarice is a common frailty of mankind and Robert Walpole's famous pronouncement that all men have their price, notwithstanding the un-savoury cynicism that it suggests, is not very far from truth. As far back as more than two centuries ago, it was Burke who cautioned: "Among a people generally corrupt, liberty cannot last long". In more recent years, Romain Rolland lamented that France fell. because there was corruption without indignation. Corruption has, in it, very dangerous potentialities. Corruption, a word of wide connotation has, in respect of almost all the spheres of our day to day life, all the world over, the limited meaning of allowing decisions and actions to be influenced not by the rights or wrongs of a case but by the prospects of monetary gains or other selfish considerations. 26. If even a fraction of what was the vox pupuli about the magnitude of corruption to be true, then it would not be far removed from the truth, that it is the rampant corruption indulged in with impunity by highly placed persons that has led to economic unrest in this country. If one is asked to name one sole factor that effectively arrested the progress of our society to prosperity, undeniably it is corruption. If the society in a developing country faces a menace greater than even the one from the hired assassins to its law and order; then that is from the corrupt elements at the higher echelons of the Government and of the political parties.” 

The petitioner had approached the Court apprehending his arrest in connection with Special Case No. 48 of 2021 arising out of Special Vigilance Unit (SVU) P.S. Case No. 02 of 2021 registered under sections 109, 120B, 201, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471,506 of the Indian Penal Code as well as sections 13(2) r/w 13 (1) (b) r/w 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act. As per the FIR, Dr. Rajendra Prasad, while working as the Vice Chancellor, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya hatched a criminal conspiracy with the assistance of Finance Officer, Veer Kunwar Singh University, the Registrar, Patliputra University private firms namely, Ms Poorva Graphics & M/s XLICT software Pvt. Ltd and other unknown accused persons and fraudulently and dishonestly cheated the Government to the extent of Rs. 20 crores during the year 2019-21 in the matter of purchase of various items related to the use of University during examination and otherwise, it is alleged that ignoring the advice of the competent officer, the accused persons raised bill to the extent of Rs. 20 crores from Magadh University and Veer Kunwar Singh University without assessing the requirement and violating the tender procedure and justification of rates etc. The Finance Officer, Veer Kunwar Singh University and Registrar Patliputra University cleared all the fraudulent bills of the private firms. The petitioner, who was officiating as the Finance Officer of Patliputra University, was deputed to Magadh University as Finance Officer by the order of the Chancellor/Governor of Bihar where he served in the capacity of Finance Officer from April 15, 2021 to July 4, 2021. The allegation against the petitioner was that he connived with the main accused, Dr. Rajendra Prasad, the then Vice Chancellor and other accused persons to clear the fraudulent bills of accused nos. 3 and 4. 

The counsel for the petitioner submitted before the High Court that from bare perusal of the First Information Report, it can be inferred at the outset that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and his name has surfaced during the investigation and the charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner on 20.03.2023. It has been further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It was further submitted that being the Finance Officer, the petitioner is bound to act in accordance with the orders of the Vice Chancellor. Section 16 of the Act also reflects that the Finance Officer has no role in making any financial decisions for the University, rather he holds a formal role as a co-signatory upon the payment of cheques. It has been further submitted that the petitioner had lodged complaints with secretary, Governor Secretariat about the mishaps of the University long before the initiation of the present case. Annexure-4 to the present application has been brought on record to substantiate the said submission. 

The Special Public Prosecutor for the Vigilance (SVU) opposed the prayer for bail and has drawn the attention of this Court to the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the SVU. It has been stated in paragraphs-10, 13 and 14 of the counter affidavit that the petitioner was in connivance with the prime accused and other accused persons. There was a fraud in supply made by the accused nos. 2 and 3 and knowing these facts the Examination Controller and the petitioner signed the cheques. Hence, the petitioner is a part of criminal conspiracy due to which huge amount of Government of Bihar was misappropriated. The counsel for the Special P.P. for the SVU hence, submits that a huge loss has been caused to the state exchequer and the petitioner is part of the said conspiracy. The attention of the Court has also been drawn to the fact that the anticipatory bail application of several similarly situated accused persons have already been rejected by the High Court. In support of their contentions, the counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments in Santosh So Dwarkadas Fafat vs. State of Maharastra (2017) 9 SCC 714, Siddharth vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2022) 1 SCC 676, Aman Preet Singh vs. CBI through Director 2021 SCC Online SC 941,  Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI & Anr. Reported as (2021) 10 SCC 773 and Mahdoom Bava vs. CBI reported as 2023 SCC OnLine SC 299. 

Supreme Court stays order of Lokpal of India to bring High Court's judges within ambit of Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act

In the matter of IN RE : ORDER DATED 27/01/2025 PASSED BY LOKPAL OF INDIA AND ANCILLIARY ISSUES, a 3-judge bench of Supreme Court issued notice to the Union of India, Registrar, Lokpal of India and the complainant, returnable on March 18, 2025 at 10.30 a.m. The Registrar, Lokpal has been directed to mask the identity of the complainant and serve notice upon the complainant through the Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court, where the complainant resides. The Court's order reads: "In the meantime there shall be stay of the order dated 27.01.2025 passed by the Lokpal of India in Complaint No.05/2025. We injunct the complainant from disclosing the name of the Hon'ble Judge against whom he has filed the complaint. The complainant is further directed to keep the complaint strictly confidential. Shri Kapil Sibal and Shri B.H. Marlapalle, learned senior counsel, have graciously offered to assist the Court, since the matter is of a great significance concerning the independence of the judiciary....Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General of India, waives notice for the Union of India. Written submission, if any, may be filed in the meantime."

The Lokpal of India had passed an order on January 27, 2025 after examining two complaints filed by the same complainant against a sitting Additional Judge of a High Court. The complainant alleged that the named judge had influenced the concerned Additional District Judge of a particular State and a Judge of the same High Court who had to deal with the suit filed against the complainant by a private company, to favour that company. It is alleged that the private company was earlier client of the named High Court Judge, while he was practicing as an advocate at the Bar. 

The order of the Lokpal reads:"Recently, we had an occasion to examine a complaint against the previous Chief Justice of India. After examining the relevant provisions of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act. 2013 (for short, the Act of 2013), it was concluded vide order dated 03.01.2025 in Complaint No 255/2024 that the judges of the Supreme Court including the Chief Justice of India even though public servants in terms of Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, Act of 1988), are not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Lokpal. Because, they do not come within the sweep of the expression public servant predicated in Section 2(1)(o) read with Section 14 of the Act of 2013. In that, the Supreme Court is a body or adjudicatory authority established in terms of Article 124 of the Constitution of India; and not under an Act of Parliament as such. It was clarified in that decision that the issue of applicability of the stated principle to other courts established by an Act of Parliament was not being discussed."

It observed: "unlike the Supreme Court of India, the High Courts for the concerned State during the pre-constitution period or so to say British India, had been established under the Indian High Courts Act, 1861 enacted by the British Parliament. This Act authorised creation of High Courts in British India, especially in Calcutta, Madras and Bombay through Letters Patent issued by the British Monarch. The Government of India Act. 1935, also passed by the British Parliament, restructured the High Courts which were already functioning in British India regime; and recognized that the High Courts were established by virtue of various Letters Patents and Regulating Act issued by the British Monarch. Pertinently, the Constitution of India. vide Article 214, intrinsically recognises the existence of all the High Courts established under the Act of 1861, the Act of 1935 and the Letters Patents issued by the British Monarch; and restates that there shall be a High Court for each State. In contrast. Article 124 is for "Establishment" and Constitution of the Supreme Court of India, as it was not in existence hitherto. After the Constitution of India came into being, the High Courts established during the British India period, under the Act of 1861 or the Act of 1935 and Letters Patent issued by the British Monarch, continued to function as the High Court of the concerned State enlisted in the First Schedule of the Constitution. Notably, the Act of the Dominion Legislature has been regarded as a Central Act. means an Act of Parliament in terms of Section 3 (7) of the General Clauses Act. 1897. 5. In due course of time, however, the States so formed and specified in the First Schedule of the Constitution. had to be reorganized. Because of reorganization of the States... "

Taking note of the legislative history, the Lokpal of India inferred that the High Court of being an "authority" empowered by law to discharge adjudicatory functions, has been established by an Act of Parliament as a "body" of Judges for that State. Thus. the High Court would qualify the description of at least two juristic entities 'by whatever name called''. out of the eight mentioned in Section 14(1)(f) of the Act of 2013 established by an Act of Parliament. which are mutually exclusive descriptions owing to use of expression "or" in that provision. It will be too naive to argue that a Judge of a High Court will not come within the ambit of expression "any person" in clause (f) of Section 14(1) of the Act of 2013. The expression "Judge" has always been understood as not only every person who is officially designated as a Judge, but also every person. The definition of Judge in Section 19 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as also the enactment of Anti-Corruption Laws (Amendment) Act. 1964 (Act 40 of 1964) and re-enacted Section 21 with the third category of public servant, including sub-clause (iv) of clause (c) of Section 2 of the Act of 1988 — defining expression public servant to mean any Judge. 

The Lokpal of India drew on what is stated on paragraph 35 of the majority view exposited by Justice Shetty in the case of K.Veeraswamy vs. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 655. it is plainly expounded that a Judge of the superior court cannot therefore be excluded from the definition of public servant and would squarely fall within the purview of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1947 (analogous to Act of 1988). Applying the underlying principle and the logic as given in this reported decision, the expression 'any person in Section 14(1)(f) of the Act of 2013 must include a Judge of the High Court established by an Act of Parliament as well. 

It observed that a fortiori, the judges of the High Court would come within the sweep of Section 14 of the Act of 2013 read with Section 2(1)(o) thereof. "We say so also because. the definition of public servant in Section 2(1)(o) of the Act of 2013 explicitly excepts only one category of officials or public servants from the jurisdiction of the Lokpal from amongst the species mentioned in Section 14 of the Act of 2013, in respect of whom the jurisdiction is exercisable by any Court or other authority under the Army Act, 1950, the Airforce Act, 1950, the Navy Act, 1957 and the Coast Guard Act,1978. Concededly; the Act of 2013 does not provide for such explicit exception for the judges of the Court established by an Act of Parliament, including Judges of the Constitutional and other Courts established by an Act of Parliament — who must come within the expanse sweep of sub-clause (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the stated Act." 

The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India in K. Veeraswamy case through its majority opinion ordains that to adequately protect a judge from frivolous prosecution and unnecessary harassment the President of India will consult the Chief Justice of India, who will consider all the material placed before him, tender his advice for giving sanction to launch prosecution or for filing FIR against the judge concerned after being satisfied in the matter, as opined by Justice B.C. Ray in paragraph 12 of the reported decision, while agreeing with the opinion of Justice K. Jagannatha Shetty for himself and Justice M.N.Venkatachaliah (as His Lordship then was). The two Judges, in paragraph 60 of the same reported Judgement, had observed as follows: 

"We therefore, direct that no criminal case shall be registered under Section 154 CrPC against a judge of the High Court, Chief Justice of a High Court or the judge of the Supreme Court unless the Chief Justice of India is consulted in the matter."

The thrust of the exposition of the majority view, is that no criminal case shall be "registered" against a judge of the High Court, Chief Justice of High Court or judge of the Supreme Court, unless the Chief Justice of India is consulted in the matter. 

The Lokpal's order reads: "We are conscious of the fact that a complaint before the Lokpal cannot be stricto sensu equated with a criminal case being registered under Section 154 of CrPC or the corresponding provision in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (for short. BNSS). However, considering the scheme of Section 20 of the Act of 2013 on receipt of a complaint and before the Lokpal decides to proceed further by ordering a preliminary inquiry by its inquiry wing or any nominated agency or investigation, it is required to examine whether there exists a prima facie case to proceed further. Such process inevitably involves a probe into the allegations against a Judge of the High Court. For effectuating preliminary inquiry, assistance of specified agency has to be taken who in turn is bestowed with an authority under Section 20 read with Section 27 of the Act of 2013, to obtain comments of the public servant and of the Competent Authority including do questioning of third persons and of official records of the courts, if the allegation against the public servant is concerning any judicial process. Further, this inquiry is and would be a prelude to issue of direction to the investigating agency to register a criminal case against the named public servant and to investigate the same under supervision of Lokpal. Having regard to the consequences emanating from the directions to be issued by the Lokpal under Section 20 of the Act coupled with the dictum in K. Veeraswami's case adverted hitherto, the appropriate course, Ex abundanti cautela, is to abide by the direction given by the majority view of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court and to approach the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India as a pre-condition or quintessence to the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Act of 2013."

It was conscious of the fact that "the allegation in this complaint also involves the named Additional District Judge. who is working in a court or body of judges which may have been established by an Act of the State Legislature.  He may be a public servant within the meaning of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, but not directly amenable to the jurisdiction of the Lokpal-as not being public servant within the meaning of Section 2(1)(o) read with Section 14 of the Act of 2013. However, eventually if an inquiry is to be ordered against the judge of the High Court. and in that inquiry any incriminatory material emerges against the named Additional District Judge. he can be prosecuted in this very action as being involved in an act of abetting. bribe giving or bribe taking or conspiracy of any allegation of corruption under the 1988 Act, by virtue of sub-section (3) of Section 14 of the Act of 2013.  A priori. we deem it appropriate to forward the subject complaints and relevant materials received in the Registry in these two matters. to the office of the Hon.ble Chief Justice of India for his kind consideration. Awaiting the guidance of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India, consideration of these complaints, for the time being, is deferred until four weeks from today, keeping in mind the statutory time frame to dispose of the complaint in terms of Section 20 (4) of the Act of 2013."

The order concludes: "We make it amply clear that by this order we have decided a singular issue finally - as to whether the Judges of the High Court established by an Act of Parliament come within the ambit of Section 14 of the Act of 2013, in the affirmative. No more and no less. In that, we have not looked into or examined the merits of the allegations at all. The Registry is directed to issue/upload copy of this order by redacting the name of the High Court and of the State including revelation of any description suggestive of giving identity of the person involved, where-ever it occurs in this order, to maintain confidentiality as mandated by the Act of 2013 and the Rules framed thereunder. 

The order was passed Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Chairperson, Lokpal and Members of Lokpal Justices L Narayana Swamy, Sanjay Yadav, Ritu Raj Awasthi and Sushil Chandra, Pankaj Kumar and Ajay Tirkey. 

ED raids in Patna Railway Claims Tribunal scam case

A press release dated January 23, 2025, Directorate of Enforcement (ED), Patna states that ED, Patna in connection with money laundering case related to Patna Railway Claims Tribunal scam carried out search operations at four locations related to Judge R.K. Mittal and other involved advocates in Patna, Nalanda and Mangalore. It has arrested three advocates- Bidyanand Singh, Parmanand Sinha, and Vijay Kumar on January 22, 2025 for offense of money laundering related to this scam under the provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002. The accused were produced before the Special Court (PMLA). They have been sent to judicial custody. Rahul Navin is the Director of Enforcement and Yaduraj Singh is the Joint Director Patna Zonal Office.     

ED initiated investigation on the basis of FIRs registered by CBI, ACB, Patna regarding mass scale irregularity/ criminality in the death claim cases filed, processed and decided at Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna (RCT) against unknown public servants of Railway, Bidyanand Singh, Parmanand Singh, Vijay Kumar and others under various sections of IPC, 1860 and Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 

According to the FIRs, in pursuance of a criminal conspiracy, in accidental death claim cases, only a part of the decreed amount, actually awarded to the claimants, was received by the claimants and major chunk was siphoned off by the conspirators.

ED investigation revealed that Advocate Bidyanand Singh and his team of advocates including Advocate Parmanand Sinha and Advocate Vijay Kumar dealt around 900 cases where decrees/execution orders were issued by Judge R.K. Mittal wherein approximately Rs. 50 Crore compensation was awarded to the claimants. 

It is revealed that Advocate Bidyanand Singh and his team of advocates opened and operated the bank accounts of claimants without their knowledge and using the signatures and thumb impressions of these claimants transferred the claim amount received from the railways to their own accounts or withdrawn in cash. Later, they gave some amount to the claimants as compensation as per their will. The searches resulted in identification of assets acquired by the advocates and judge in their names and recovery of physical and digital records including signed blank bank cheques and signed blank papers by the claimants. Further investigation is under progress.

The Directorate originated on May 1, 1956, when an ‘Enforcement Unit’ was formed in the Department of Economic Affairs for handling Exchange Control Laws violations under Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA), 1947. In 1957, this Unit was renamed as ‘Enforcement Directorate’. In 1960, the administrative control of the Directorate was transferred from the Department of Economic Affairs to the Department of Revenue. FERA, 47 was repealed and replaced by FERA, 1973. For four years (1973 – 1977), the Directorate was under the administrative jurisdiction of the Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms. FERA, 1973 was repealed and the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA) came into operation on June 1, 2000. The PMLA was enacted in 2002 and the ED was entrusted with its enforcement from July 1, 2005. The Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, 2018 (FEOA) has been enacted and ED is entrusted with its enforcement with effect from April 21, 2018. This enactments have been made under the International Anti Money Laundering regime. 

High Court to hear Lawrence Bishnoi's illegal interview case on November 19

In its order dated October 28, 2024, the Punjab and Haryana High Court's Division Bench of Justices Anupinder Singh Grewal and Lapita Banerji observed: "The Advocate General, Punjab has filed the affidavit dated 27.10.2024 of Assistant Inspector General of Police wherein it is stated that Punjab police officers/officials have been placed under suspension and departmental proceedings have been initiated against the 8 officers. Inspector Shiv Kumar, the then Incharge, CIA Kharar who had been given extension in services has been terminated by the order dated 25.10.2024. It appears that beside two gazetted officers who have been placed under suspension, the other officers include officers of the rank of HC, ASI, Sub Inspectors. This Court, by order dated 07.08.2024 had specifically directed that action should be taken against the senior officers who had facilitated the interview and the lower level officers should not be made scapegoats. No action appears to have been taken against the senior officers of the District. By order dated 24.09.2024, we had also directed the State to inform us by filing an affidavit of the competent authority as to why the interviewee had been kept in the premises of CIA Staff Kharar for a long period of time, and whether the repeated remands to keep the interviewee there was a deliberate attempt to keep him at the same station for extraneous reasons or whether he was generally required for investigation. Explanation was also sought for as to why Shiv Kumar, the then Incharge CIA was given extension and posted there. The affidavit addressing the aforesaid concern of the Court has not been filed till date. We, therefore, direct the Director General of Police, Punjab to file an affidavit in this regard. Earlier it came to the notice of this Court that the Director General of Police had made a statement in a press conference that the interview had not taken place in any jail in the State of Punjab." 

It also observed: "The fact that the interview had been conducted within the premises of CIA staff Kharar, District SAS Nagar makes it even worse as it appears to have been conducted in connivance with the police officers. Therefore, we direct the DGP, Punjab to disclose on affidavit the basis of such statement made during press conference. Learned Amicus Curiae submits that although this Court by the order dated 21.12.2023 had directed the interview to be taken off from all social media platforms by blocking/removing all URL links but it has again resurfaced on some websites/social media handles. This Court by order dated 21.12.2023 had directed the removal of the interview. The relevant extract of the order is reproduced hereunder:-
“While hearing the matter, it had also come to our notice that a known criminal, namely, Lawrence Bishnoi, who is also a suspect in the murder case of a renowned singer Shubhdeep Singh Sidhu Moosewala, had been interviewed by a News channel and the interviews had been telecast in March, 2023. Lawrence Bishnoi was stated to be in the custody of the Punjab police or judicial custody in the State of Punjab at that time. We were informed that the interviewee was in Bathinda jail when the interview was telecast but the place and time the interview was conducted was not known. A two member High-Powered Committee comprising of Director General, STF and ADGP, Prisons had been constituted in March 2023 to enquire into the incident as it had been viewed seriously by the authorities. The report of the Committee had been placed before us in a sealed cover and a copy of the report was also furnished to the learned amicus curiae. Learned amicus curiae submits that there are several aspects which have not been looked into by the Committee and if the matter is properly investigated or re-examined, the exact time and location of the place where the interviewee was situated when the interviews were conducted can be pinpointed. She also submits that after registration of FIR, these aspects can be looked into by the Special Investigation Team. She stated that the telecast of the interviews is having an adverse impact on  youngsters who are getting swayed and it creates wrong impression on the young impressionable minds as the interviews glorifies the criminal life and activities and the interviewee has justified taking law in his own hands for settling personal scores. In fact, a prisoner facing so many criminal cases had access to technology while being in custody and then through that technology has justified his criminal acts as desire of God/destiny. The interviews have been viewed by over 12 million viewers. The amicus curiae further submits that after the telecast of interviews, many more young persons have started writing threatening letters to the film actor targeted in the interview of Lawrence Bishnoi. She further submits that although the fundamental right to speech and expression is important, but this right is subject to reasonable restrictions which include public order, decency, morality and incitement to offence. The telecast of the interviews is adversely affecting public order and harmony."  Advocate Tanu Bedi is the  Amicus Curiae. 

The relevant excerpts also reads" "We have also gone through the report which indicates that the Committee has come to the conclusion that it is highly improbable that interviews had taken place either in judicial custody or in the police custody in the State of Punjab. It is apparent that the Committee has not reached a definite conclusion that the interviews were not being conducted in a jail or police custody within the State of Punjab. They have recorded the statements of large number of witnesses in this regard."

The order noted: "We find it strange that the Committee took over 8 months to arrive at an inconclusive finding. Nonetheless, the Committee has made a recommendation for registration of two FIRs with regard to two interviews which were conducted in violation of the law. The Committee has recommended that the government may consider registration of two separate FIRs (one each for the respective interview) at a police station having statewide jurisdiction to investigate the matter and take on record relevant evidence/data exercising the powers available under Cr.P.C. If during the course of investigation, the offence(s) relating to any of the two cases or both of them is/are found to have occurred outside the State, the concerned case(s) may be transferred to police station(s) of appropriate jurisdiction. Further, the Committee has also made a recommendation to the Government to remove the URL of the video from the public domain.  The ADGP, Prisons, Punjab submits that they recommended registration of FIR as after registration of FIR the matter can be investigated with the procedure prescribed and connected cases under the Cr.P.C. for summoning the witnesses to record their statements etc. Learned State counsel submits that the report is being considered by the Government and appropriate action would be taken. She also submits that Lawrence Bishnoi is involved in 71 cases in the State of Punjab and had been convicted in 4 cases which includes offences under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, 302 IPC, extortions etc. The State itself appears to have taken up the matter with some seriousness as a High-Powered Committee was set up by the State. In the backdrop of the gravity of the situation where a suspect, who is involved in a large number of serious criminal cases, is allowed to conduct an interview in police/judicial custody and it has taken the Committee over eight months to submit an inconclusive report, we, while directing the registration of the FIR would like the matter to be investigated by a Special Investigation Team. Those, who facilitated the interviews need to be brought to book at the earliest. We deem it appropriate to constitute a Special Investigation Team headed by Mr. Prabodh Kumar, D.G., Human Rights Commission, the other members of the Team would be Dr. S. Rahul, IPS and Ms. Nilambari Vijay Jagadale, DIG, Cyber Crime.  It is true that freedom of speech and expression has been enshrined in Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India. This freedom also includes a free and fair press which is an important pillar of a democracy governed by rule of law. However, this freedom is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions as provided under Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India, which include security of State, public order and would not permit incitement to an offence.  We have gone through the contents of the interviews which indicate that it glorifies crime and criminals. The interviewee is involved in 71 cases in the State of Punjab and had been convicted in 4 cases which includes offences under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, 302 IPC, extortions etc. The interviewee is justifying target killings and his criminal activities. He has reiterated and justified threat to a film actor. As in a large number of cases wherein he is involved, trials are underway and attempt to projecting his persona as larger than life could influence the witnesses. These interviews are stated to have garnered over 12 million views. It would have an adverse impact upon youngsters with impressionable minds. Punjab is a border State and any deterioration in law and order or increase in crime could affect the national security as at times, anti national elements take advantage of the situation and often use criminals for their nefarious designs. They often get help from across the border. There is a thin line between extortion, target killings and anti–national activities. The conduct of the interviews is an apparent jail security breach and violation of the Prisons Act. The interviews have been telecast for the last 9 months and are available on public domain. xxxxX”
(c) In case the said interviews are discovered by police authorities to be existing on any social media
platform in future, the same be get removed with immediate effect;
(e) To direct the search engines Google Search, Yahoo Search, Microsoft Bing to globally de-index and de reference from their search results the afore-said interviews and their related contents as identified by its web URL and image URL. xxxxxX”.

The order reads: "Learned Advocate General assures this Court that necessary steps shall be taken to remove the interview from all the social media platforms located globally and in compliance to the order and appropriate action shall be taken against those who have facilitated the uploading and forwarding of the banned content. Further, we direct that there should be periodic check and if interviews banned vide order dated 21.12.2023 are found to have resurfaced then they be removed immediately without any further orders of this Court. This Court had constituted the SIT headed by Mr. Prabodh Kumar, Special DGP, Punjab State Human Rights Commission to conduct investigation in FIR No.2 dated 06.01.2024 registered under Sections 384, 201, 202, 506, 116, 120-B IPC and 52A of Prisons Act. The SIT had been able to pinpoint that the interview had taken place within the premises of CIA staff Kharar on the basis of assessment of electronic evidence and had also been able to pinpoint the misconduct & negligence of the officers. However, cancellation report had been filed before the JMIC wherein it was mentioned that besides offence under Section 506 IPC, the aforenoted offences under which the FIR had been registered were not made out. It is important to note that the SIT has been able to establish that the interview had taken place within the premises of the CIA staff Kharar in the presence of senior officers of the Punjab Police. The office of the Officer Incharge of the Police Station was used as a studio to conduct the interview. The official Wi-Fi at the premises of the CIA staff had been provided for conducting the interview which is a pointer towards the criminal conspiracy. The report indicates that roznamcha was also forged and fabricated. The matter calls for further investigation as to for what consideration this was done and the various aspects towards offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act besides other offences need to be examined. Therefore, the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. raises a suspicion of nexus and conspiracy between the police officers and the criminal. The police officers allowed the criminal to use electronic device and provided a studio like facility to conduct the interview which tends to glorify crime with the potential to facilitate other crimes including extortion by the criminal and his associates. Involvement of the police officers may suggest receipt of illegal gratification from the criminal or his associates and constitute offences under Prevention of Corruption Act. Therefore, the case requires further investigation. Learned Advocate General, Punjab submits that it is indeed a serious matter and further investigation needs to be carried out towards unearthing the criminal conspiracy, abetment, corruption etc. Mr. Prabodh Kumar, Special DGP, Punjab State Human Rights Commission, who is virtually present in Court submits that the SIT earlier did not have the mandate to look into the other offences including those under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the investigation was not carried out regarding those aspects as the SIT did not deem it appropriate to conduct a fishing and roving enquiry."

It further reads:"We direct that a new SIT headed by Mr. Prabodh Kumar and also comprising of Mr. Nageshwar Rao, ADGP, Provisioning and Mr.Nilabh Kishore, ADGP, STF to carry out further investigation towards criminal conspiracy, abetment, forgery, offences under Prevention of Corruption Act, Information Technology Act and also under any other offence. The SIT shall file a status report within a period of 6 weeks. The learned Advocate General, Punjab submits that he shall be filing an affidavit with the Registry with regard to augmentation of jail security.  At this juncture, learned Amicus Curiae has also informed the Court that an application has been received from the inmate of District Jail Nabha namely Ravinder Singh @ Lali Maur son of Baldev Singh that he is a law student and wants to apprise this Court of various issues concerning the jail. He may address this Court on the next date of hearing through video conferencing. The Superintendent, District Jail, Nabha shall provide video conferencing facilities to enable the applicant to address the Court. List on 19.11.2024.  Photocopy of this order be placed in the connected file(s)."

In its order dated October 15, 2024, the Punjab and Haryana High Court's Division Bench of the High Court comprising Justices Anupinder Singh Grewal and Lapita Banerji had observed: Mr. Prabodh Kumar, the Special Director General of Police, Punjab Human Rights Commission cum-head of the SIT has filed an affidavit with regard to the completion to investigation in FIR No. 1 dated 05.01.2024 registered at Police Station State Crime, Punjab, SAS Nagar. It is state din the affidavit that the police. report under Section 173 Cr.P.C (now BNSS, 2023) has been filed on 09.10.2024 in the Court of JMIC, District SAS Nagar. In  the affidavit, self-contained note has been annexed as Annexure R-1 indicating the misconduct,  negligence and dereliction of duty by the concerned officers. The note has also been sent to the Administrative Secretary, Government of Punjab, Department of Home Affairs  We appreciate the commendable efforts made by the SIT headed by Mr. Prabodh Kumar, IPS in conducting the investigation as well as preparing the note pointing to the negligence and dereliction of duties of the officers. Learned Amicus Curiae prays for time to examine the affidavit and to apprise this Court as to whether the report of the High Powered Committed set up by the State Govt. suffered from lapses which were deliberate or intentional in not taking the matter to its logical conclusion. Learned State counsel submits that they have received a self- contained note (Annexure R-1) and has assured the Court that appropriate action has been initiated against delinquent officials and prays for sometime to file an affidavit in that regard. Mr. Arun Pal Singh, ADGP (Prisons), Punjab, while appearing through video conferencing, submits that several steps have been taken towards installation of V-Kavach jammers and prays for time to file an affidavit in this regard. List on 28.10.2024. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected case." 

Notably, on July 30 2024, Supreme Court's bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma had passed an order dismissing a special leave petition (SLP) challenging the first information reports (FIRs) lodged against gangster Lawrence Bishnoi on the direction of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in connection with the interview given to a private TV while being lodged in high-security prison. Lawrence Bishnoi's original name is Balkaran Brar. The SLP was filed on June 11, 2024, verified on July 25, 2024 and registered on July 30, 2024. The respondents were: the State of Punjab, the State of Haryana and the Union Territory of Chandigarh. 

The Division Bench of the High Court comprising Justices Anupinder Singh Grewal and Kirti Singh had passed a detailed order on December 21, 2023. The High Court took note of the case of Lawrence Bishnoi's interview while hearing a totally unrelated case. 

The High Court's order reads: "While hearing the matter, it had also come to our notice that a known criminal, namely, Lawrence Bishnoi, who is also a suspect in the murder case of a renowned singer Shubhdeep Singh Sidhu Moosewala, had been interviewed by a News channel and the interviews had been telecast in March, 2023. Lawrence Bishnoi was stated to be in the custody of the Punjab police or judicial custody in the State of Punjab at that time. We were informed that the interviewee was in Bathinda jail when the interview was telecast but the place and time the interview was conducted was not known. A two member High-Powered Committee comprising of Director General, STF and ADGP, Prisons had been constituted in March 2023 to enquire into the incident as it had been viewed seriously by the authorities. The report of the Committee had been placed before us in a sealed cover and a copy of the report was also furnished to the learned amicus curiae. Learned amicus curiae submits that there are several aspects which have not been looked into by the Committee and if the matter is properly investigated or re-examined, the exact time and location of the place where the interviewee was situated when the interviews were conducted can be pinpointed. She also submits that after registration of FIR, these aspects can be looked into by the Special Investigation Team. She stated that the telecast of the interviews is having an adverse impact on youngsters who are getting swayed and it creates wrong impression on the young impressionable minds as the interviews glorifies the criminal life and activities and the interviewee has justified taking law in his own hands for settling personal scores. In fact, a prisoner facing so many criminal cases had access to technology while being in custody and then through that technology has justified his criminal acts as desire of God/destiny. The interviews have been viewed by over 12 million viewers. The amicus curiae further submits that after the telecast of interviews, many more young persons have started writing threatening letters to the film actor targeted in the interview of Lawrence Bishnoi. She further submits that although the fundamental right to speech and expression is important, but this right is subject to reasonable restrictions which include public order, decency, morality and incitement to offence. The telecast of the interviews is adversely affecting public order and harmony."

The order reads: "We have also gone through the report which indicates that the Committee has come to the conclusion that it is highly improbable that interviews had taken place either in judicial custody or in the police custody in the State of Punjab. It is apparent that the Committee has not reached a definite conclusion that the interviews were not being conducted in a jail or police custody within the State of Punjab. They have recorded the statements of large number of witnesses in this regard. We find it strange that the Committee took over 8 months to arrive at an inconclusive finding. Nonetheless, the Committee has made a recommendation for registration of two FIRs with regard to two interviews which were conducted in violation of the law. The Committee has recommended that the government may consider registration of two separate FIRs (one each for the respective interview) at a police station having statewide jurisdiction to investigate the matter and take on record relevant evidence/data exercising the powers available under Cr.P.C. If during the course of investigation, the offence(s) relating to any of the two cases or both of them is/are found to have occurred outside the State, the concerned case(s) may be transferred to police station(s) of appropriate jurisdiction. Further, the Committee has also made a recommendation to the Government to remove the URL of the video from the public domain."

The order reads: "The ADGP, Prisons, Punjab submits that they recommended registration of FIR as after registration of FIR the matter can be investigated with the procedure prescribed under the Cr.P.C. for summoning the witnesses to record their statements etc. Learned State counsel submits that the report is being considered by the Government and appropriate action would be taken. She also submits that Lawrence Bishnoi is involved in 71 cases in the State of Punjab and had been convicted in 4 cases which includes offences under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, 302 IPC, extortions etc. The State itself appears to have taken up the matter with some seriousness as a High-Powered Committee was set up by the State. In the backdrop of the gravity of the situation where a suspect, who is involved in a large number of serious criminal cases, is allowed to conduct an interview in police/judicial custody and it has taken the Committee over eight months to submit an inconclusive report, we, while directing the registration of the FIR would like the matter to be investigated by a Special Investigation Team. Those, who facilitated the interviews need to be brought to book at the earliest."

The High Court observed: "We have gone through the contents of the interviews which indicate that it glorifies crime and criminals....he interviewee is justifying target killings and his criminal activities. He has reiterated and justified threat to a film actor. As in a large number of cases wherein he is involved, trials are underway and attempt to projecting his persona as larger than life could influence the witnesses....The conduct of the interviews is an apparent jail security breach and violation of the Prisons Act. The interviews have been telecast for the last 9 months and are available on public domain. The Committee has recommended that the Government may ask the police to ensure removal of videos pertaining to Interview-I and Interview-II from YouTube/ internet, wherever possible. We would not like to wait for the government to act at its leisure but would direct the removal of the interviews. Reference can be made to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Court on its own motion vs. Union of India and others, (CROCP No.2 of 2023) wherein while relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1, it had directed the removal/blocking of the offensive content from social media platforms."

It relied on Delhi High Court's decision in the case of ‘X’ vs. Union of India and ors. (Decided on : 20.04.2021),while drawing upon Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India wherein the Court had directed the offending contents to be removed. In the event of intermediary not removing objectionable contents in pursuance to the direction of this Court, it would loose its exemption under Section 79 of the I.T. Act from its liability in cases illustrated therein. Moreover, Rule 3(1)(b)(vii) of The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 provides that, the intermediary shall make reasonable efforts to cause the user of its computer resource not to host, display, upload, modify, publish, transmit, store, update or share any information which threatens the unity, integrity, defence, security or sovereignty of India, friendly relations with foreign States, or public order, or causes incitement to the commission of any cognisable offence, or prevents investigation of any offence, or is insulting other nation; (emphasis supplied). Furthermore, Rule 3(1)(d) provides that an intermediary, on whose computer resource the information is stored, hosted or published, upon receiving actual knowledge in the form of an order by a court of competent jurisdiction or on being notified by the Appropriate Government or its agency under clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 79 of the Act, shall not host, store or publish any unlawful information, which is prohibited under any law for the time being in force in relation to the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India; security of the State; friendly relations with foreign States; public order; decency or morality; defamation; incitement to an offence relating to the above, or any information which is prohibited under any law for the time being in force.

The High Court had issued the following directions:
i) The DGP, Punjab, is directed to immediately register two FIRs with regard to the conduct of two interviews as recommended by the Special Investigation Team in the police station having State-wide jurisdiction.
ii) The investigation of the FIRs shall be carried out by the Special Investigation Team headed by Mr. Prabodh Kumar, IPS, DG, Human Rights Commission. The other members of the SIT would include Dr. S.Rahul, IPS and Ms.Nilambari Vijay Jagadale, DIG, Cyber Crime.
iii) The Head of the SIT would be at liberty to seek assistance of any other officer or of any other kind, on his making a request, the DGP, Punjab shall provide all necessary help and assistance to him. A copy of the report dated 11.12.2023 and the relevant record shall be handed over to the Head of the SIT. The SIT shall conclude the investigation expeditiously and file a status report before this Court within a period of two months.
iv) The DGP, Punjab is further directed:
(a) to get the URLs/weblinks/videos pertaining to both the said interviews removed/blocked/disable/restrict from all social media platforms like Youtube etc. forthwith;
(b) To ensure that the Press channel, where the said interview is hosted, removes the URLs/weblinks/videos from all its news /social media platforms with immediate effect;
(c) In case the said interviews are discovered by police authorities to be existing on any social media platform in future, the same be get removed with immediate effect;
(d) to direct the intermediary to preserve all the information associated relating to the offending content for use in investigation, in line with Rule 3(1) (g) of the 2021 Rules;
(e) To direct the search engines Google Search, Yahoo Search, Microsoft Bing to globally de-index and de-reference from their search results the afore-said interviews and their related contents as identified by its web URL and image URL. 

(f) All the concerned intermediaries be informed that non- compliance with the foregoing directions would make the non-complaint party liable to forfeit the exemption, if any, available to it generally under Section 79 (1) of the I.T.Act and as specified by Rule 7 of 2021 Rules: and shall make such entity and its officers liable for action as mandated by section 85 of the I.T.Act.
(g) The ADGP, Prisons, Punjab shall file a status report with regard to the timelines for installation of jammers, CCTV cameras, nylon mesh, X-ray body scanners etc. for augmentation of jail security.

A subsequent order of the High Court dated September 24, 2024 records that Tanu Bedi, Amicus Curiae submitted that "the interviewee had been kept at the premises of the CIA Staff Kharar for a long period of time and repeated remands had been taken to keep him there which needs to be examined as to whether there was a deliberate attempt to keep him there for extraneous reasons or he was genuinely required for investigation. It has also been brought to our notice by the counsel for State of Punjab that Inspector Shiv Kumar, the then Incharge of the CIA Staff, Kharar had retired in the year 2023. However, the affidavit filed by the ADGP (Prisons) indicates that Inspector Shiv Kumar was Incharge of the CIA Staff Kharar till January, 2024. It is disconcerting to believe that an officer, who had superannuated, had been given extension and posted at CIA Staff Kharar. Learned State counsel prays for time to seek instructions in this regard and file an affidavit of the competent authority as to why he was given extension and posted at CIA Staff Kharar. The State shall also file an affidavit in response to the submission of the learned Amicus Curiae with regard to stay of interviewee at CIA Staff Kharar and as to whether the officers who have been issued show cause notices are currently at posts having public dealing."

 

The order of September 24, 2024 notes that the State counsel filed an affidavit of the Assistant Inspector General of Police, Litigation, Bureau of Investigation, Punjab in Court to submit that "show cause notices have been issued to four officers including the then SSP of the District SAS Nagar as to why disciplinary proceedings be not initiated against them. He has also filed an affidavit of the Additional Director General of Police, Prisons, Punjab indicating the progress made in installation of jammers, AI based CCTV cameras, body worn cameras, X-Ray baggage scanners and prison inmate calling system." The order states that the counsel for Union of India, one of the respondents "furnished a copy of the communication issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs to the Additional Solicitor General of India dated 18.09.2024 indicating that ‘no objection certificate’ to the State Government has been accorded vide letter of even number dated 23.08.2024 to the proposal of the Department of Jails, Govt. of Punjab for deployment of jammers in its jails. The said communication is taken on record." But the order records that Arun Pal Singh, ADGP (Prisons), Punjab, while appearing through video conferencing, submitted that "no objection certificate for installation of jammers in the Central Jail, Sri Goindwal Sahib is still pending consideration before the Govt. of India." 

 

Notably, ABP Network news channel has filed a case in the Supreme Court through Advocate Prasanna S. on August 13, 2024 which was verified On September 13, 2024 and registered on September 12, 2024 in the aftermath of High Court's order wherein it took note of the interview of Lawrence Bishnoi in jail by Jagvinder Patial, a ABP News journalist. In December 2023, the High Court had ordered the registration of FIR and probe by an SIT headed by IPS officer Prabodh Kumar into the interview of Bishnoi. The High Court had acted suo motu in the matter concerning the use of mobile phones by inmates within jail premises. On August 30, 2024, the Supreme Court's bench of Chief Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Mishra passed an order saying, "While the second petitioner shall cooperate in the investigation by the Special Investigation Team which has been constituted by the High Court, we direct that pending further orders of this Court, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioners." The second petitioner is Patial, the journalist. The case is pending before the Supreme Court. 

 

It is apparent that subsequently, Lawrence Bishnoi was put in Delhi's Tihar Jail. He was lodged there before being handed over to the Gujarat Anti-Terrorism Squad in April 2023 even as the case being heard in Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Supreme Court. Gujarat Police had found the role of one Bharat Bhushan alias Bhola Shooter - a member of the Lawrence Bishnoi gang - in the 2021 Morbi drug seizure. Bhushan died while being in jail. Later, National Investigation Agency (NIA) had filled a chargesheet against gangsters Lawrence Bishnoi and Goldy Brar for having links with the banned pro-Khalistan outfit Babbar Khalsa International (BKI) and other similar terrorist groups in one of three terror-criminal nexus cases. The chargesheet named 12 other individuals. NIA had alleged that Bishnoi, along with Canada-based gangster Goldy Brar and has been operating his terror-crime syndicate from jails. Bishnoi is in jail from 2015. Goldy Brar is reported to be hiding in Canada. 

 

Also read: Gopalganj native Baba Siddique killed in Mumbai by a gang of Lawrence Bishnoi lodged in Sabramati Central Jail?

Supreme Court yet to pronounce verdict on constitutionality of CBI, and CBI's challenge against Madras High Court's verdict on non-compliance with CBI Manual

“When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty.”
-Thomas Jefferson, the principal author of the Declaration of Independence (1776) and the third President of the United States (1801–1809) quoted by the Division Bench of Gauhati High Court

The Supreme Court's bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih heard a quashing petition related to a CBI led corruption case quashed by the Madras High Court's Dr. Justice T. Mathivanana in the State through the Inspector of Police CBI vs. S.Murali Mohan on October 1, 2024. Although two days have passed since the hearing but no order has not been uploaded on the Supreme Court's website as of 4.46 PM on October 3, 2024. A careful reading of Justice Mathivanana's judgement shows that its reasoning is unambiguous and impeccable. CBI has failed to comply with the procedure laid down in the CBI Manual.    

Notably, Supreme Court is yet to decide the constitutionality of CBI, which claims to be exercising functions and powers of police under the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act, 1946. In a reasoned judgement Gauhati High Court's Division Bench has concluded:" we do hold that the CBI is neither an organ nor a part of the DSPE and the CBI cannot be treated as a ‘police force’ constituted under the DSPE Act, 1946. 180. We hereby also set aside and quash the impugned Resolution, dated 01.04.1963, whereby CBI has been constituted. We further set aside and quash the impugned charge-sheet, submitted by the CBI, against the appellant and, consequently, the trial, which rests on the impugned charge-sheet, shall stand set aside and quashed" on November 6, 2011. 

Almost eleven years have passed since the "un-reasoned order of stay" by the Supreme Court on this "reasoned judgment" from the Gauhati High Court which declared its formation to be "unconstitutional". Hearing the matter at his residence on a Saturday (November 9, 2013), Justice P Sathasivam, the 40th Chief Justice of India (2013 to 2014). Chief Justice had passed an "un-reasoned order" to stay the "reasoned judgement" of Gauhati High Court without hearing both the parties. Notices were also issued to all parties involved in the case. The order reads: "Issue notice returnable on 6th December, 2013....In the meantime, there shall be stay of operation of the final judgment and impugned order dated 06.11.2013 passed by the Gauhati High Court in Writ Appeal No. 119 of 2008 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6877 of 2005." The stay was reiterated by an order dated December 6, 2013 by a 3-Judge bench of the Chief Justice and Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi (who did not participate).  

40th Chief Justice of India Sathasivam retired without deciding the constitutionality of the CBI. After retirement, Sathasivam was appointed the 21st Governor of Kerala from September 5, 2014 for five years. 

In February 2019, Justice I.A. Ansari, former Chief Justice of Patna High Court and the author of the Gauhati High Court's verdict observed: “The CBI was never constituted under any statute, but under an executive order of the Union Home Ministry in the year 1963, and that too, with no backing from the Constitution.” He added, “the very constitutionality of the CBI is questionable, and this question has to be answered by the Supreme Court”. So far the case has been listed for hearing only once on June 26, 2019 before the vacation bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and B.R. Gavai. The order reads:"List after vacation." Several vacations have passed but the case regarding the unconstitutionality of the CBI is yet to be decided through a reasoned order.

Notably, 50th Chief Justice of India is all set to retire on November 10, 2024 possibly without deciding the constitutionality of CBI.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court's bench heard CBI's challenge to an order dated May 15, 2017 passed by Dr. Justice T. Mathivanana, a Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Madras on October 1, 2024. The case made out by the petitioner is that the Judge pronounced a one line order in the Court on May 15, 2017. The petitioner applied for grant of a certified copy of the order on the same day. The petitioner submitted that as per the oral information from the Registry of the Madras High Court, the Judge had not issued a detailed order. It was pointed out in the Special Leave Petition that the Judge demitted the office on May 26, 2017. The case made out in the Special Leave Petition is that a certified copy of the impugned judgment was furnished to the petitioner on July 26, 2017. The case made out in the Special Leave Petition is that the detailed reasoned order of the Judge was not available till the date on which he demitted the office.

The Court's order records that another contention has been raised on the basis of a letter dated May 11, 2018 addressed by the Special Public Prosecutor of CBI, Chennai to the Joint Director of CBI, Chennai Zone, Chennai. The said letter records that as per the directions  of the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court, 9 cases, which were heard by the said Judge, were ordered to be heard afresh. Though the letter does not mention the case number of the present case, the submission of the senior counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the present case is also included in the list of 9 cases. The senior counsel appearing for the respondents invited Court's attention to a query made by the respondents under the Right to Information Act, 2005 on December 17, 2018 seeking information about the date of the detailed order in Criminal O.P. No.2245/2017 which is the case subject-matter of this Special Leave Petition. The reply furnished by the Registrar (Administration)/PIO records that the correct date of the order passed in the said case is May 15, 2017.

The dispute raised by the petitioner is not about the date mentioned on the reasoned judgment. The contention of the petitioner is that on May 15, 2017, only a single line order was pronounced by the Judge and till the date on which the Judge demitted the office, the reasoned judgment was not available.

After hearing these submissions, the Court passed an order. It reads: "We, therefore, direct the Registrar General of the High Court of Judicature at Madras at Chennai to furnish following information: (a) What is the date on which the detailed judgment/order dated 15th May, 2017 was received by the Registry from the Office/Chamber of the learned Single Judge; (b) When the detailed judgment/order was uploaded on the website of the High Court; and (c) Whether there was any administrative direction issued by the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the Madras High Court at Chennai for de novo hearing of 09 cases heard by the learned Single Judge and, if such a direction was issued, whether the case subject-matter of this Special Leave Petition has been included in the list of 09 cases." 

It also directed that the Registrar (Judicial) of the Supreme Court to forward a copy of its order to the Registrar General of the High Court of Judicature at Madras at Chennai. The Registrar General was requested to submit a report to this Court by the end of this month. Only for the purposes of considering the report of the Registrar General, the Special Leave Petition was listed under the caption of “Orders/Directions” on the top of the cause list on October 1, 2024. The case was filed on August 11, 2018. It was verified on October 22, 2018 and registered on October 31, 2018. 

Prior to this in S.Murali Mohan and S.Srikala vs. State by The Inspector of Police CBI/ACB/Chennai before the Madras High Court, the petitioners had invoked the provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the criminal proceedings of the case which is registered against them on the file of the SP/Inspector of Police, CBI, ACB, Chennai. S.Murali Mohan, the first petitioner is an IRS Officer belonging to 1999 batch in the Income Tax Department and as Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range CR-3 Chennai. S.Srikala, the second petitioner is his wife. It is alleged that during the check period i.e., from 01.01.2002 to 30.08.2014, Mohan amassed assets and pecuniary resources to the tune of Rs.3,28,00,029/- in his name as well as in the name of his wife and also in the name of other family members, which is disproportionate to his known and lawful source of income, for which he has not satisfactorily accounted. According to the FIR, the assets in their names prima facie discloses the commission of offences punishable under Sections 120-B IPC r/w.Section 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988. 

In its 74 page long judgement dated May 15, 2017,  Madras High Court observed: "This Court would like to place it on record that this is a vexation litigation which amounts to abuse of process of Court....This Court, on perusal of the entire allegations made against the petitioners in the FIR is of considered opinion that all the allegations are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioners. Finally, the criminal proceedings initiated by the respondent is manifestly attended with malafide with an
ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the petitioners with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge." The judgement was authored by Dr. Justice T. Mathivanan. 

The judgement records that the source of information regarding corruption by the petitioners was received on December 20, 2016 at 11.00 AM. "The case was registered on the very same date and within half an hour of its registration i.e. at 11.30 AM, the FIR was dispatched to the learned Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai. It is thus made clear that the procedure enunciated in the CBI Manual has not been followed." Chapters 8 and 9 of the CBI Manual are relevant in this regard. It also noted that "Admittedly no preliminary enquiry was conducted in this case to ascertain the genuineness of the source information."

Although the case in question from the pre July 1, 2024 era, it is noteworthy that Section 173 (i) and (ii) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 has made preliminary enquiry mandatory. It states: "on receipt of information relating to the commission of any cognizable offence, which is made punishable for three years or more but less than seven years, the officer in charge of the police station may with the prior permission from an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, considering the nature and gravity of the offence,—(i) proceed to conduct preliminary enquiry to ascertain whether there exists a prima facie case for proceeding in the matter within a period of fourteen days; or (ii) proceed with investigation when there exists a prima facie case." The spirit of this provision is already there in the CBI Manual which does not seem to have been adhered to.

Justice Mathivanan relied on Supreme Court's decision in the State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors. [1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335], to infer that "the allegations made in the FIR, even their taken on their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the petitioners." He concluded: "Keeping in view of the above fact, this Court is of considered view that the criminal proceedings in FIR bearing No. RC MA1 2016 A 0045, on the file of the SP/Inspector of Police, CBI, ACB, Chennai, is deserved to be quashed by exercising inherent jurisdiction of this Court conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In the result, the criminal original petition is allowed and the FIR bearing No. RC MA1 2016 A 0045 on the file of the SP/Inspector of Police, CBI, ACB, Chennai is quashed. The assets seized including the freezed Bank accounts of the petitioners shall be released forthwith by the respondent." The High Court also observed: "This Court has gone through the records and is of the considered opinion that the second petitioner had recognisable independent income and she had been regularly complying with all the statutory requirements."

Isn't there a logical compulsion to decide the constitutionality of CBI before deciding whether or CBI's challenge to a judgement of Madras High Court? Why should the latter get priority over the former?

Supreme Court reiterates "bail is rule and jail is exception", sets aside Delhi High Court's order on Manish Sisodia's bail application

Hearing Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, the appeal challenging the judgment and order of May 21, 2024 passed by the Delhi High Court rejecting the grant of bail, the Supreme Court's bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan observed: "The present case travelled two rounds before the trial court, the High Court and this Court. This is now the third round before this Court wherein the appellant is seeking bail in connection with the aforesaid two cases."  The application was filed for seeking bail in connection with a Enforcement Directorate (ED) case registered against the appellant by the ED and First Information Report (FIR) registered against the appellant by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The judgement was delivered on August 9, 2024. It was authored by Justice Gavai.  Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Senior Counsel appeared for the appellant and S. V. Raju, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) appeared on behalf of the respondents.

The Supreme Court's 38 page long judgement reads: "The impugned judgment and order dated 21st May 2024 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Bail Application Nos. 1557 and 1559 of 2024 is quashed and set aside; The appellant is directed to be released on bail in connection with ED Case No. HIU-II/14/2022 registered against the appellant by the ED and FIR No. RC0032022A0053 of 2022 registered against the appellant by the CBI...." Reacting to grant of bail by the Court, Sisodia said,"Lawyer is like God for any person in jail, Abhishek Manu Singhvi is also God for me".  

The judgement records Court's opinion in its first order. It reads: "Detention or jail before being pronounced guilty of an offence should not become punishment without trial. If the trial gets protracted despite assurances of the prosecution, and it is clear that case will not be decided within a foreseeable time, the prayer for bail may be meritorious. While the prosecution may pertain to an economic offence, yet it may not be proper to equate these cases with those punishable with death, imprisonment for life, ten years or more like offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, murder, cases of rape, dacoity, kidnaping for ransom, mass violence, etc. Neither is this a case where 100/1000s of depositors have been defrauded. The allegations have to be established and proven. The right to bail in cases of delay, coupled with incarceration for a long period, depending on the nature of the allegations, should be read into Section 439 of the Code and Section 45 of the PML Act. The reason is that the constitutional mandate is the higher law, and it is the basic right of the person charged of an offence and not convicted, that he be ensured and given a speedy trial. When the trial is not proceeding for reasons not attributable to the accused, the court, unless there are good reasons, may well be guided to exercise the power to grant bail. This would be truer where the trial would take years." 

It relied on Court's own decision in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Others v. Union of India and Others (2022) to infer that "Section 436A Cr.P.C. should not be construed as a mandate that an accused should not be granted bail under the PMLA till he has suffered incarceration for the specified period."

It observed: "In a matter pertaining to the life and liberty of a citizen which is one of the most sacrosanct rights guaranteed by the Constitution, a citizen cannot be made to run from pillar to post." It recalled the adage: "procedure is a hand maiden and not a mistress of justice." 

The Court drew on its decision in the case of Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024). It reads :
“21. The Right to Life and Personal Liberty is the most sacrosanct fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 20, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. Any attempt to encroach upon this fundamental right has been frowned upon by this Court in a catena of decisions. In this regard, we may refer to following observations made by this Court in the case of Roy V.D. v. State of Kerala3:—“7. The life and liberty of an individual is so sacrosanct that it cannot be allowed to be interfered with except under the authority of law. It is a principle which has been recognised and applied in all civilised countries. In our Constitution
Article 21 guarantees protection of life and personal liberty not only to citizens of India but also to aliens.”” Justice Gavai was part of the bench which decided the release of Prabir Purkayastha, the editor of NewsClick. 

Justice Gavai led bench observed: " the question that arises is as to whether the trial court and the High Court have correctly considered the observations made by this Court with regard to right to speedy trial and prolonged period of incarceration. The courts below have rejected the claim of the appellant applying the triple test as contemplated under Section 45 of the PMLA. In our view, this is in ignorance of the observations made by this Court in paragraph 28 of the first order wherein this Court specifically observed that right to bail in cases of delay coupled with incarceration for a long period should be read into Section
439 Cr.P.C. and Section 45 of the PMLA."

He observed: we find that the finding of the learned trial judge that it is the appellant who is responsible
for delaying the trial is not supported by the record. The learned Single Judge of the High Court endorses the finding of the trial court on the ground that the accused persons have taken three months’ time from 19th October 2023 to 19th January 2024 for inspection of “un-relied upon documents” despite repeated directions from the learned trial court to conclude the same expeditiously. It is to be noted that there are around 69,000 pages of documents involved in both the CBI and the ED matters. Taking into consideration the huge magnitude of the documents involved, it cannot be stated that the accused is not entitled to take a reasonable time for inspection of the said documents. In order to avail the right to fair trial, the accused cannot be denied the right to have inspection of the documents including the “un-relied upon documents”. 

His decision noted that the contentions raised by the Additional Solicitor General was self-contradictory and the failure of both the High Court and the trial court. He observed: "We find that, on account of a long period of incarceration running for around 17 months and the trial even not having been commenced, the appellant has been deprived of his right to speedy trial. As observed by this Court, the right to speedy trial and the right to liberty are sacrosanct rights. On denial of these rights, the trial court as well as the High Court ought to have given due weightage to this factor."

The Court factored in the Court's decision on a bail application in the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra and Another (2024) wherein the accused was prosecuted under the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The Court surveyed the entire law right from the judgment of this Court in the cases of Gudikanti Narasimhulu and Others v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh (1978), Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Others v. State of Punjab (1980), Hussainara Khatoon and Others (I) v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar (1980), Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021) and Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another (2022). 

After the survey of its own decisions, the Court observed:“If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime.”

The Court observed: "The Court further observed that, over a period of time, the trial courts and the High Courts have forgotten a very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. From our experience, we can say that it appears that the trial courts and the High Courts attempt to play safe in matters of grant of bail. The principle that bail is a rule and refusal is an exception is, at times, followed in breach. On account of non-grant of bail even in straight forward open and shut cases, this Court is flooded with huge number of bail petitions thereby adding to the huge pendency. It is high time that the trial courts and the High Courts should recognize the principle that “bail is rule and jail is exception”." 

Justice Gavai observed: "In our view, keeping the appellant behind the bars for an unlimited period of time in the hope of speedy completion of trial would deprive his fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. As observed time and again, the prolonged incarceration before being pronounced guilty of an offence should not be permitted to become punishment without trial."

It all began with on the basis of a letter dated July 20, 2022 by Vinai Kumar Saxena, the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi alleging irregularities in the framing and implementation of Delhi’s Excise Policy for the year 2021-22, the Director, Ministry of Home Affairs had directed an enquiry into the matter vide Office Memorandum dated July 22, 2022. On February 26 2023, the appellant came to be arrested by the CBI. Subsequently, the appellant was arrested by the ED on March 9, 2023. After investigation, CBI filed charge-sheet on April 25, 2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 7A, 8 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act, 1988 read with Sections 420, 201 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860. Upon completion of investigation, the ED filed a complaint under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) on May 4, 2023.