Legal provisions involved: Section 302 of the IPC, Section 120B of the IPC and Article 141 of Indian Constitution

Judgment by: The Supreme Court

Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih

Facts

The case concerns Anisur Rahaman, who is accused of murdering a political rival. After spending over five years in jail, he was granted bail with a condition to stay only in Kolkata. He later asked for this condition to be removed, while the victim’s brother sought cancellation of his bail, alleging misuse of freedom and witness intimidation.

Key legal provisions

1. Section 302 of the IPC [now replaced by  Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)]
2. Section 120B of the IPC [now replaced by  Section 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)]
3. Article 141 of Indian Constitution 

Issues raised

1. Whether the restriction on the movement of the accused should be moved?
2. Whether the bail granted earlier be cancelled on account of alleged threats?

Arguments of the case

The complainant claimed Anisur was influencing witnesses due to his political connections, while Anisur argued the movement restriction was unnecessary since the trial was almost complete. It was also questioned why he still had police security.

Judgement 

The Supreme Court refused to change its earlier decision. It said that without any new or strong reason, settled orders should not be reopened. Since Anisur had not broken any bail rules, his bail would continue, but the restriction to stay in Kolkata would remain. The court also directed the trial court to finish the case as soon as possible according to the law.

Read the full judgement HERE.